Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teacher Training (James Report)

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a progress report on her consultations on the James Report on Teacher Training.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will list the bodies with whom she is having consultations about the James Report.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the arrangements she has made regarding the consultations on the James Report; and when she expects these consultations to be concluded.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): Comments have been submitted by about 20 bodies and some 30 others have been invited to let me have their views by the end of May. I expect discussions with some of the principal bodies to start next month but I cannot yet say how soon they will be completed. With permission, I will circulate lists of the bodies concerned in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Lady not agree that effective consultations can take place only when substantial facts are known? Is she not aware that her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told me in answer to a Question before the Recess that he is considering publishing figures concerning the future of

teacher supply? Will she ask him to publish those figures so that the facts on which the James proposals stand or fall may be made known?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish information, given under the promise that it would be confidential, to be revealed later. Statistics are being prepared and I hope that they will soon be available.

Mr. Hill: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent she is now able to give an estimate of the cost of implementing the report and, secondly, how far in the proposed consultations there will be an attempt to discover to what extent professions other than teaching might use the proposed two-year diploma in higher education?

Mrs. Thatcher: Estimates are being prepared on a number of different assumptions. On the second point raised by my hon. Friend, I hope that those in industry and commerce will make it known whether they would wish to use people who have completed the two-year diploma course. It would help us to adjudge whether such a course would be more widely used.

Mr. Willey: In view of the formidable and authoritative criticism that has been made of some of the James recommendations, will the right hon. Lady consider publishing, as soon as she feels able, her own tentative views so that they may be further discussed and there may be consultations about them? At the same time, does she realise that the James Committee Report does not have the appendices we might have expected in such a report and that if she presents her views she might also supply the factual information upon which they are based?

Mrs. Thatcher: If I were to publish any tentative views before consultation I should come under very severe criticism indeed. I prefer to carry out the consultations. I am sure that that is the right way to proceed. I expect them to be both extensive and interesting because the subject and the entire report are so important.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Should it become clear that there is general agreement about the proposals for the third cycle


which provides for in-service training, would my right hon. Friend take an opportunity soon thereafter to ask L.E.A.s to include a clause in the contracts of service of teachers entitling them to such training?

Mrs. Thatcher: I appreciate the importance of that point. Before we did that it would be important to see that the proper facilities were available and also to bear in mind that in some subjects it is difficult for some local authorities to arrange secondment. That third cycle has been generally welcomed, but it will nevertheless require a lot of further working out before it could be put into effect.

Mr. Dormand: Whatever the Secretary of State decides to do about the James recommendations, will she ensure that close attention is paid to the probationary period? Would she not agree that the present arrangements are totally unsatisfactory and that positive action must be taken over this most important period in a teacher's life?

Mrs. Thatcher: I agree that positive action must be taken on this as on the third cycle. There were proposals, welcome to a number of people, about the probationary period in the first part of the report. Whether or not we accept them, I agree that some improvements should be made in the probationary part of a teacher's service.

Mr. Moyle: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the decision to try to reform teacher training on the basis of a report founded on confidential evidence was wrong, as it has undermined the credibility of the report with all sections of educational opinion, including even the vice-chancellors? Will she therefore make available to the public the evidence given by her departmental officials?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. At the beginning of its report, the James Committee pointed out that a great deal of information which had been published was already available to it and had been before the Select Committee, and that were it not for those reports and publications it would not have been able to proceed as fast as it did.

Following is the information:

THE BODIES INVITED TO SUBMIT COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSOCIATIONS

Association of Education Committees.

Association of Municipal Corporations.

County Councils Association.

Inner London Education Authority.

Welsh Joint Education Committee.

TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONS

National Association of Head Teachers.

National Association of Schoolmasters.

National Union of Teachers.

The Joint Four.

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

Association of Teachers in Colleges and Departments of Education.

Bodies concerned with denominational voluntary colleges

British and Foreign School Society.

Catholic Education Council.

Church of England Board of Education.

Methodist Education Committee.

Non-denominational voluntary colleges

*Froebel Institute College of Education.

*Goldsmiths' College.

Homerton College.

Westhill College of Education.

UNIVERSITY BODIES

*Association of University Teachers.

*Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

The Open University.

Universities Council for the Education of Teachers.

University Grants Committee.

*These bodies had submitted some comments before the letter of invitation was sent.

BODIES CONCERNED WITH ADVANCED FURTHER EDUCATION

Association of Colleges of Further and Higher Education.

Association of Principals of Technical Institutions.

Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions.

Committee of Directors of Polytechnics.

OTHER BODIES

Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work.

Council for National Academic Awards.

National Union of Students.

OTHER BODIES WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

AREA TRAINING ORGANISATIONS

Loughborough University of Technology Institute of Education (Sub-A.T.O.).

University of London Institute of Education.

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

Bedford College of Education.

Bolton College of Education (Technical).

Christ Church College, Canterbury.

City of Leeds and Carnegie College.

Furzedown College of Education.

Homerton College.

Nonington College of Physical Education.

Northern Counties College of Education.

Philippa Fawcett College.

Poulton-le-Fylde College.

St. Mary's College, Cheltenham.

St. Paul's College, Cheltenham.

St. Paul's College, Rugby.

Southlands College of Education.

Stockwell College of Education.

Weymouth College of Education.

L.E.A.

Nottingham.

OTHERS

Ethel Wormald College Students' Union.

Nottingham A.T.O. Advisory Committee for In-Service Training and Curriculum Development.

The School Broadcasting Council for the United Kingdom.

The Trades Union Congress.

Deaf/Blind Children

Mr. Ashley: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the educational provision for deaf/blind children; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities were asked in July, 1970, to review the provision available in their areas for children with defects of both sight and hearing. Many are educated with other handicapped children; but since that date a further special unit has opened and at least five others are now being provided.

Mr. Ashley: May I, for a change, express my warm appreciation to the right hon. Lady for her initiative on this issue and ask her to seek to extend the provision of special units for deaf/blind children even further and to try to ensure that it is available throughout their period of education, which is not the case at present?

Mrs. Thatcher: I shall consider sympathetically any requests received, but the hon. Gentleman knows that it is difficult to make provision available over the whole country when a very small number of children are involved. There are 460 children who are known to have defects of both sight and hearing, and we must weigh in the balance the need for widely spread units against the need for units

of a size sufficiently large to provide all the facilities.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before the happy day comes when we eradicate these sensory defects by encouraging school medical officers to push the German measles vaccination programme, what the schools, and particularly the smaller schools, need is more equipment? They are still woefully short of equipment, particularly of auditory trainers. My right hon. Friend could immediately help the smaller units by providing more equipment.

Mrs. Thatcher: The question of equipment is for the local education authorities. Some of these children are in hospital schools, which now come within the responsibility of the Department. However, if my hon. Friend has any particular cases in mind, we shall very much like to know about them because we are all anxious to help.

Mr. Edward Short: Does the right hon. Lady recollect the Imprisoned Minds Campaign in July, 1968, and the large public meeting at the Central Hall, Westminster, at which Lord Boyle and two of her present ministerial colleagues spoke and at which a letter from the present Prime Minister was read which stated that if the Labour Government did not institute a Plowden-type inquiry into the education of handicapped children a Conservative Government would? When will the right hon. Lady implement that specific promise by the Prime Minister?

Mrs. Thatcher: The promise was not to institute a public inquiry. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have an excellent Advisory Committee on the Education of Handicapped Children which sometimes sets up sub-committees to consider specific problems. That body is working extremely well and, together with all the other information available, gives us all we need. The main object is steadily to improve the facilities for these children.

Student Relations

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science which recommendations of the Education and Science Select Committee's Report on Student Relations published in 1969 she now intends to implement.

Mrs. Thatcher: The greater part of these recommendations were addressed, not to the Department, but to various bodies concerned with higher education. I take the work of the Committee into account in developing higher education policy.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Lady consult her hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who knows something about this Committee's work? When does she propose to institute an inquiry into financing that part of higher education which is outside the university sector?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not propose to institute an inquiry into that matter for the time being. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have very important decisions about the future of higher education to make this year, and we shall be receiving a number of views on that subject.

Staying on at School

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the proportion of young people currently staying at school after reaching the statutory school leaving date both in the West Riding of Yorkshire and in the area where the highest proportion occurs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): For maintained secondary schools, 49 per cent. and 83 per cent. in January, 1971. The average for England and Wales was 56 per cent.

Mr. Hardy: The number of young people staying on at school in the West Riding has increased in the last year or two, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the principal reason for it is the very serious unemployment problem facing the country? Will the hon. Gentleman give an estimate of the numbers of people staying on at school because of unemployment in the West Riding and in the other area referred to in the Question?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I doubt whether that is so because, unhappily, this is a feature of school life throughout the country. However, I accept that there is nothing like a sufficient number of people staying on at school in the West Riding, and this is one of the justifications for the statutory raising of the school leaving age.

Paintings (Conservation)

Mr. Allason: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement on the Report of the Anderson Committee on training in the conservation of paintings, a copy of which is in her possession.

Mr. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she proposes to establish a centre for training in the restoration and conservation of paintings and drawings, as recommended in the joint report of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The report is being studied. My noble Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend noted that the facilities for training in conserving paintings are totally inadequate and that there is a clear need for a conservation institute? Has he also noted that the terms of reference of the Anderson Committee related only to paintings and drawings, whereas there is a need for conserving other museum exhibits—for example, textiles?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I noted the very clear evidence in the report concerning weaknesses in this matter, although whether it necessarily leads to the conclusion that an institute should be founded is plainly one of the matters at present under discussion. But I warmly accept what my hon. Friend says. While paintings are mostly the concern of the galleries, there are many other respects in which conservation is very important, such as metal work and textiles, which my hon. Friend mentioned.

Mr. Strauss: Although we cannot complain if the Government want time to consider this very important report, may we have an undertaking that they will give it very sympathetic consideration in view of the importance of its recommendations and that we shall have a decision within a few months—before the summer recess at the latest?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The report raises major considerations, and it is only reasonable that my noble Friend the


Paymaster-General should want to study it very closely.

Mr. Cormack: May I express the hope that my hon. Friend's understandable caution will not become complacency? A year ago he informed me that there were only 10 fully qualified restorers in our national institutes and that 12 were in training. Has the situation improved?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The problem of restorers is serious, but the question which requires careful consideration is whether the solution suggested by the very able Anderson Committee is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Faulds: That is not good enough. In view of the crucial importance of the findings and recommendations of the Anderson Committee, will the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State—and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will excuse me for addressing this question to her—undertake to implement them?

Mr. van Straubenzee: There are major ramifications in the report's recommendations, and it is not in the least unreasonable that a report published quite recently should be closely studied before decisions are made.

Medical Research Council (Establishments)

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many research establishments under the Medical Research Council she has now visited officially.

Mrs. Thatcher: Four, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Since it is becoming a matter of some embarrassment for hon. Members on both sides of the House to have to say to constituents who work for the M.R.C., "We have had no debate on this", and as the House of Lords has had a two-day debate on the Rothschild Report, cannot the Government give time for discussing this matter before decisions are made?

Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for arranging the business of the House. I agree that such a debate in this House would be very interesting. Perhaps the

Opposition would care to use one of their Supply days for it.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Rothschild Report is a Government paper and that therefore the Government should provide time for a debate on this matter? The right hon. Lady will no doubt have found that the research establishments she has visited are doing excellent work. Does she not agree that in visiting four establishments she has done much better than Lord Rothschild did before he submitted his Green Paper to the other place?

Mrs. Thatcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman forgets that Lord Rothschild was chairman of one of the research committees and knows a very great deal about it. I am amazed that he should presume to attack such a distinguished researcher.

School Children (Computerised Data)

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what research is presently being undertaken by her Department into the computerised filing of data on children at school.

Mr. van Straubenzee: None, Sir.

Mr. Huckfield: Is not the hon. Gentle man aware that some local authorities are actively engaged in putting on computerised files educational and other data about school children? Is he not concerned that these data files include teachers' assessments of pupils which may remain with them for the rest of their lives? Is he not concerned that his Department is not doing very much about this? Will he ensure that his right hon. Friend at least looks into it and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked four questions.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am aware of the pilot project to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in respect of which, he will recall, he had an Adjournment debate rather under a year ago. I am asked whether my Department will conduct research into the matter. The answer is, "No". The confidentiality of records is not something that is brought out afresh by virtue of the records being computerised.

The Arts (Government Policy)

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a further statement of Government policy on the arts.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The 1972–73 Estimates (Class IX) show the broad headings of the expansionist policy for the arts being pursued by the Government.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the vast sums of money that are being spent in regional development grants, which will eventually amount to £300 million—which I certainly welcome—what plans have the Government for keeping expenditure on the arts in the regions in proportion to this increase and so improving the quality of life in the regions?

Mr. van Straubenzee: On many occasions my noble Friend has been on record as warmly encouraging provision for the regions. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noticed, for example, that the Arts Council has increased in the forthcoming year from £466,000 to £700,000 its grant to the regional art associations. That is a decision of the Arts Council, but it shows an important trend.

Mr. Strauss: Is it not ludicrous that the Government should have two Bills before the House, one introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer relieving taxpayers of a tax burden of more than £1,000 million and the other introduced by his right hon. Friend imposing for the first time in our history a tax of £1 million on visitors to museums and galleries? Will he not prod the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask him to relieve his right hon. Friend of the promise made by the Minister responsible for the arts two years ago, in entirely different circumstances, to impose this £1 million taxation, a great part of which is paid for by children for whom the right hon. Lady has responsibility?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The House will have ample opportunity at the further stages of the Bill in question for discussing these matters. The Standing Committee sat for nine happy sittings and on each occasion the arguments of the Opposition were decisively repulsed.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend make it quite clear to his noble Friend in another place that the needs of the regions are of great importance? although the Arts Council has apparently been persuaded to increase its allocation, perhaps a little more could be done in that direction, since the Arts Council needs a shove from both sides of the House?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I will convey those sentiments to my noble Friend. My hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will recall the discussion in another place at the end of last month in which my noble Friend expressed sentiments with which he would warmly agree.

Mr. Faulds: May I support my right hon. and distinguished Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). Instead of making further statements, will not the hon. Gentleman retract on past policy? Will he not have the gumption to withdraw the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill in view both of the near unanimous opposition to it and the great damage it has done to the relations of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend with the trustees of the various institutions?

Mr. van Straubenzee: If the Bill were to be withdrawn it certainly would not be withdrawn in answer to a supplementary question.

Corsbie Hall

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children from English education authorities are still attending the private fee-paying school for handicapped children at Corsbie Hall, Thornton, Fife; and what steps those local authorities are taking to make their own provision for such children.

Mrs. Thatcher: Four, sent by one local education authority. This authority and three others jointly maintain a boarding special school for 50 maladjusted boys aged 7–16, but it has no vacancies at present for these four boys.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Lady regard it as satisfactory that the borough of Oldham should continue to send children to a school in my constituency which for some months she has regarded as educationally unsatisfactory?


Does she still stand by that decision, or is she prepared to allow Oldham to send its children to an institution which she regards as educationally unsatisfactory?

Mrs. Thatcher: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the answers to his questions yesterday, a further inspection has been completed by inspectors attached to the Scottish Education Department, and we are awaiting the results of that inspection to see whether my right hon. Friend will register this school. If he does not do so, I shall have to consider seriously what further action is to be taken in respect of these four children.

School Meals

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what she estimates to be the total cost of restoring the price of school meals to its 1970 level.

Mr. van Straubenzee: An additional £26 million per year.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister tell us what sort of a Government give away £1,200 million in the Budget and at the same time compel half a million kids to eat sandwiches and chips for their dinner? What representations did his Department make to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, either before the Budget or after it, to ask them to find the £26 million to reduce the cost of school meals to what it should be?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's Question and supplementary question because they illustrate the difference of viewpoint, in that the £26 million is equivalent, for example, to about 300 new primary schools.

Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend set up an educational establishment to inform members of the Opposition that the Budget does not give money away but merely allows people to keep more of their own money in their pockets?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot help my hon. Friend because I am afraid that in this, as in much else, the Opposition are in educable.

Mr. Edward Short: Is it still the Government's policy, as announced in "New Policies for Public Spending" in October, 1970, to charge the full econo-

mic cost for school meals, or has that policy gone the way of all their other initial policies?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The matter will be appropriately considered, as has been previously announced.

Milk (West Riding)

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many primary school children in the West Riding receive free milk on medical grounds at the latest convenient date; and what this is as a percentage of those medically examined for the provision of such milk.

Mr. van Straubenzee: 205 in October, 1971. No information is available about the number of children examined for this purpose.

Mr. Clark: Does not the Minister realise that it is a frightening answer that out of 109,000 junior school children in the West Riding only 205 receive free milk on medical grounds? Will the Minister look into this matter, because there must be many junior school children in the West Riding who are suffering because they are not getting the milk they need on medical grounds?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am as concerned as he is that any child who is entitled to milk should get it. He may not have appreciated that the figure I have given is necessarily one taken in October, 1970, very soon after the new arrangements came into effect.

Mr. Deakins: Does not the Minister agree that the process of medically examining children to see whether they need free school milk has became a farce in the past few months? The figures given in answers from the Government in recent weeks show that the percentage varies enormously from one local authority to another and can only reflect differing standards adopted by various local authorities?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is much too early to come to conclusions so determined as that. When the statistics are available from the next census it may be possible to draw a conclusion.

Road Safety

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals she has for implementing recommendation 644 of the Council of Europe on road safety and road safety in schools; and if she will make a statement?

Mrs. Thatcher: On the first part of the recommendation, my Department and the Department of the Environment are collaborating in the preparation of guidance on road safety education for teachers. The remainder of the recommendation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Jones: Is this not the thin end of the wedge of changes in our school system following entry into the Common Market, and is not a new principle being established when the Government seek to lay down what is to be taught in our schools? Has the Secretary of State any plans to consult the teachers on this matter in the near future?

Mrs. Thatcher: No, I do not believe that it is the thin end of the wedge. Our system of curriculum is different, and will remain different, from that in some continental countries. At an earlier stage we gave guidance on road safety and that kind of thing, and we shall continue to do so in the future. I hope that a handbook will be published later this year.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is not only roads that present dangers to children, since in my constituency in the last 10 years we have lost 32 children in the local canal? This is a disgrace to any nationalised board. Will she consider the possibility in industrial areas of opening more and more schools during the summer holiday to try to obviate these dreadful tragedies to working-class children?

Mrs. Thatcher: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has gone a rather long way from the Question, but if local education authorities wish to open schools during the summer holidays—and some of them do—they are free to do so. Such a course would require very carefully controlled supervision or there could be even more tragedies.

Primary Schools (Northamptonshire)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been spent on building new primary schools in Northamptonshire since 1st July, 1970.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Payments made to contractors as reported by the local education authority up to 31st December. 1971, totalled £468,000.

Sir G. de Freitas: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that by insisting that I ask a Question about the whole of Northamptonshire, which includes many other constituencies than my own, instead of a Question about my constituency of Kettering, he has deliberately concealed the fact that the Government have done almost nothing to relieve overcrowding in my constituency?

Mr. van Straubenzee: There must be some misunderstanding.

Sir G. de Freitas: None at all.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Question asks how much money has been spent in Northamptonshire.

Sir G. de Freitas: The hon. Gentleman refuses to answer.

Mr. van Straubenzee: With respect, that is what I have answered and I can answer only Questions relating to local education authorities.

Mr. Fry: As a Member for a Northamptonshire constituency which perhaps has the fastest growing school population, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on putting right the priorities in education and on concentrating on primary school places, a course for which many people are grateful? Will he continue to keep priorities right and not be dragged into any half-baked schemes for secondary reorganisation?

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is no doubt that the present concentration on replacement of old primary schools has been widely welcomed.

Sir G. de Freitas: In view of the totally unsatisfactory and deliberately misleading reply, I give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

School Transport

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the report of the working party on school transport will be available.

Mrs. Thatcher: The working party has only just been established. It is too early to forecast how long it will take to complete its work.

Dr. Marshall: Will this report be published?

Mrs. Thatcher: I expect there commendations to be published. I shall consider whether the report will be published when I receive it. I wish it to be a comprehensive report, and I cannot undertake that it will make an early appearance.

Mr. Hicks: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that the terms of reference of this working party include full consultations with the Department of the Environment and counties and authorities concerned with the whole future of transport in rural areas, because probably one facet of the situation could help in resolving another?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, the Department of the Environment will be represented on the working party, and matters which will fall to be included in the review include the present statutory walking distances, danger to children from traffic hazards, the burden on parents of increased public transport fares, the growing public expenditure on school transport and the use by local education authorities of their discretion in the provision of transport. I hope that both the composition of the Committee and its terms of reference will meet my hon. Friend's approval.

St. Giles' School for the Handicapped, Croydon

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now authorise the rebuilding of St. Giles' School for the Handicapped in Croydon as a school for deaf children.

Mrs. Thatcher: Proposals from the Croydon local education authority, which were not linked, for replacing St. Giles' School and for establishing a new school for the deaf are being considered in

connection with the 1972–73 design list for special schools which will be announced in a month or so.

Sir R. Thompson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that moderately encouraging reply. May I ask her to put her personal weight behind a favourable decision? Is she aware that the provision for deaf children in the largest of the London boroughs is deficient and ought to be remedied, that many of the children spend a large part of their time going to and from other schools elsewhere, and that this scheme has the support of six London boroughs and would be an absolute winner, especially if it were sited in Croydon?

Mrs. Thatcher: I hope my hon. Friend might think that my weight might not be sufficient. In fact his authority has not yet told my Department that it wants to establish a new school for the deaf in St. Giles' School. He will be aware that schools for the deaf have to be carefully sited so that they are at the centre of a large catchment area. I shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's request with my mind, if not with my weight.

Portsmouth Polytechnic

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on representations made to her concerning the adequacy of residential and working accommodation for the proposed expansion of Portsmouth Polytechnic, with special reference to the needs of the Social Work Department.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My right hon. Friend has received letters from two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), about accommodation at Portsmouth Polytechnic. I have replied to them on her behalf, pointing out that further large building projects are now under consideration. These would provide amongst other things for a Humanities and Social Science block and a substantial amount of additional staff and student accommodation.

Mr. Judd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he appreciate that in recent years this Social Work Department has had grave difficulties in


trying to cope in improvised accommodation, and that speed in the new building project is essential for the well-being of the polytechnic? On the wider front, is he aware that the general problems of accommodation in Portsmouth Polytechnic are not unrelated to the prolonged sit-in there, and will the Government look as speedily as possible at the problems not only of Portsmouth Polytechnic but of polytechnics generally?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I shall avoid making any comments on the sit-in since, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the subject of legal proceedings. I hope he will recall the substantial programme approved last November by my right hon. Friend for this polytechnic which amounted to £1·16 million and which included residential places. I accept that there have been some difficulties at the polytechnic. I hope to visit it shortly.

Educational Inequalities

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what policies she has to reduce regional inequalities in education.

Mrs. Thatcher: The raising of the school leaving age is expected to make a major contribution by offsetting the wide regional variations in staying-on rates for pupils over the compulsory school leaving age.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that the average son of a professional person in Surrey has roughly a 200 times greater chance of entering a university than has the average daughter of an unskilled worker in West Ham? Is not the right hon. Lady's deliberate failure to extend positive discrimination in expenditure beyond mere tokenism responsible for maintaining this disgraceful stain on our educational system?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman would be aware that we run a scheme of positive discrimination. We positively discriminate in favour of those areas in the urban programme by allocating expenditure to nursery schools in these areas. There is also discrimination in favour of some of the educational priority area schools. The third matter which will greatly assist these children is the raising of the school leaving age—a decision which has been ducked by every other Government.

Mr. Goodhart: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one subject on which there is the greatest disparity between the good and bad regions is the provision of school books and equipment? What further action does she propose to take to encourage bad regions and bad authorities to increase their provision in this respect?

Mrs. Thatcher: Within the rate support grant, each time it is negotiated, there is an improvement factor, part of which is designed to enable authorities to raise the standard of books and equipment. The local authorities do an excellent service by publishing the figures showing which authorities give high priority to books and equipment in their schools.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in a recent reply to me she stated that the Government intended to review the rate support grant system for unfavourable regions? Can she undertake that she will either publish her view son this subject or give us a White Paper before the Local Government Bill becomes law, so that people can make representations to her while that Measure is passing through this House or the other place?

Mrs. Thatcher: There is a discussion paper already published on local government finance, and the hon. Gentleman naturally will put his views when that paper is debated.

Mr. Edward Short: Does not the right hon. Lady feel that the correction of regional imbalances would be a better priority than the provision of primary schools as such, wherever they are?

Mrs. Thatcher: Many of the bad primary schools are in the regions and therefore they get a larger share of the primary school improvement programme. It is fair to the children to try to allocate the money in proportion to those who are in Victorian buildings. About half of it has gone to bad areas in the industrial regions.

Secondary Education, Derby

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has now examined the objections lodged against the proposed reorganisation of secondary education in the Sector "B" area of Derby Borough; and what


plans she has for advancing the timetable to build a new secondary school to meet the demand in the Melbourne, Aston-on-Trent, Weston-on-Trent, and surrounding areas of South Derbyshire.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Department is examining the statutory proposals for Sector "B" together with those for Sector "C" to which there have been objections. An instalment of a new secondary school at Chellaston has been included in the 1972–73 preliminary list.

Mr. Rost: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be most welcome to children in my constituency? I thank my hon. Friend for it. Is he aware, further, that if that new school is not built, children in South Derbyshire will have to take a selective examination to enter a non-selective system and that that is why the building of this new school and the priority which the Minister is giving to it will be very warmly welcomed in my constituency?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It was for that reason, and for others, that it was included in the preliminary list.

Mr. Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department's failure to give any specific authorisation so far to Sector "B" proposals, and incidentally to give any adequate reply to letters from me and other hon. Members with constituencies in Derby, is being interpreted by teachers and parents as a sabotaging of the comprehensive scheme and as an indication that the Department is willing to wound but afraid to strike.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I cannot be responsible for the interpretations that parents, assisted by the hon. Gentleman, may be making. My right hon. Friend has a statutory responsibility, and it would be wrong for me to comment on the merits of the scheme while they are under her consideration.

Inner London Education Authority

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she last met the leader of the Inner London Education Authority to discuss education measures affecting the authority.

Mrs. Thatcher: On 27th March, 1972, Sir.

Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Lady fully aware, therefore, of the deep concern of the authority following the savage cuts that she has made in its minor works programme? As these cuts will total some £700,000 in the next three years, is it not time the right hon. Lady rethought her proposals in view of the serious damage the cuts will cause to junior and primary schools in the Inner London area and, above all, in the most deprived areas of London?

Mrs. Thatcher: I cannot reconsider the decision. The total available for minor works is allocated on a well-tried formula of the number of extra children for whom the authority has to provide plus a small margin for improvements. Hitherto other areas have compared very unfavourably with the Inner London Education Authority.

Vocational Students (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Booth: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will ascertain how many local authorities are fully operating the scheme recommended by the Confederation of British Industry and the local authority associations for financially assisting vocational students between the ages of 16 and 18 years.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The local authority associations recommended local education authorities to exercise their discretion to assist part-time students up to the age of 18. The Department has no formal standing in the matter and my right hon. Friend would not feel justified in interfering. I welcome the fact that most authorities do make some provision to assist.

Mr. Booth: Is it the Government's policy in operating the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to have a uniform high standard of industrial training throughout the country? If it is, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is wholly wrong that young workers should be dependent for financial assistance for educational and vocational training and fees on the attitude that the local authorities take towards an agreement between the C.B.I. and the local authority associations?

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is not an agreement of that nature, but I can confirm that my right hon. Friend warmly welcomes the advice given by the local authorities to assist part-time students up to the age of 18 partially for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has given.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of the Environment, Trade and Industry and Employment in the Government's relations with the building industry.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. Responsibility for relations with the industry lies primarily with the Department of the Environment, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is chairman of the National Consultative Council of the Building and Civil Engineering Industries.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister also satisfied with the scandalous increase in house prices in the last year and the prospect of their exploding uncontrollably when council house tenants discover that "fair rents" means farewell to low rents? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to recommend the concerted control of land and the building industry, or does he prefer to see house prices double, as council house rents will double?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any relationship between the last two factors. The only answer is to increase the supply of houses. This is what we are doing. In the four months from November of last year to February, starts in private housing were over 35 per cent. higher than a year earlier. In the public sector over the same period, approvals were 14 per cent. higher than a year earlier. I am sure that this is a more effective way of dealing with the problem than trying to institute controls.

Mr. Idris Owen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of the dramatic expansion in the building industry, an acute shortage of skilled labour is developing and that this has been confirmed today by an officer of the Department of Employment in my constituency? Will my right hon. Friend indicate what

steps he intends to take to avoid a crisis in the latter part of the year?

The Prime Minister: It is true that certain shortages are developing in parts of the country, although there is high unemployment in the construction industry as a whole. What is necessary is, first, that there should be further training for skilled craftsmen in the construction industry, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has embarked on this already; and, secondly, that those who have skills in the construction industry should go to the places where the construction is being carried out.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the question of land prices? Is not he aware that there have been astronomical increases in land prices in the last six months and that the situation today is that a man earning £30 a week cannot get a large enough mortgage advance to buy himself a house? Is it not about time that the Government did something to control land prices rather than allowing people to do without houses?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends have instituted discussions in all the regions between the builders and the planning authorities in order to establish where the difficulties lie in particular areas and to ensure a greater release of land. This is a helpful step towards solving the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR (DISCUSSIONS)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Leader of the Opposition to join him in his forthcoming discussions with the West German Chancellor.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Leader of the Opposition to attend one of his official meetings with Herr Brandt on 20th April or 21st April.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. But I hope that there will be an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition or one of his right hon. Friends to meet Herr Brandt while he is in London.

Mr. Redmond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply. Will he ask the Leader of the Opposition particularly to explain his latest position in relation to the Common Market to Herr Brandt so that the Chancellor may clearly understand on which terms the right hon. Gentleman would recommend British entry?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition records in his memoirs on page 765 that when Herr Brandt came to London in 1970 they had
a total identity of views
on the Common Market. It is not the German Chancellor who has changed.

Mr. Adley: In the unlikely event of Herr Brandt being persuaded to meet the Leader of the Opposition, will my right hon. Friend encourage the German Chancellor to explain to the Leader of the Opposition that the difference between the German Parliament of 1972 and the German Parliament of 1933 is that today the German Parliament is free, sovereign and democratic whereas in 1933 it was holding referenda on various subjects?

The Prime Minister: As a matter of historical fact my hon. Friend is, of course, quite correct. I must, in fairness, point out that Herr Brandt, during his visits to this country, has always been absolutely willing to meet either the Leader of the Opposition or myself when in Opposition.
The difficulty next week I understand will be that the Leader of the Opposition will be away from this country on a visit to North America on a ten-day lecture tour during which he will be speaking on the art of political leadership.

Mr. Callaghan: Aside from the continued series of childish insults which we are getting from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether he is aware that I shall be very happy to accept the invitation which his office has already given me to have lunch with him and the German Chancellor next week, as will others of my colleagues, and that we shall then be very glad to discuss with Herr Brandt the basis on which it will be possible for the British Labour Government to co-operate with him after the inevitable defeat of the Conservative

Government whenever the right hon. Gentleman holds the next election?

The Prime Minister: I know that the German Chancellor will do his utmost to believe what the right hon. Gentleman tells him, but he will have great difficulty in believing that one.

Mr. Mellish: Why not test it?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister why he is taking the chair at the meeting of the National Economic Development Council on 3rd May.

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Prime Minister how many requests he has received that he take the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

The Prime Minister: It is my practice to take the chair at Council meetings from time to time, and I shall do so on 3rd May. I have received no representations about the chairmanship of this or any other meeting of the Council.

Mr. Dalyell: How will the Prime Minister be defining to "Neddy" the Government's precise attitude towards the railwaymen's pay claim?

The Prime Minister: It is not my responsibility to explain that to "Neddy", which is a tripartite discussion between Government, employers and unions. I expect responsibility to rest on the unions to explain why they are so far not prepared to accept the very generous offer from the Railways Board.

Dr. Gilbert: While it is not surprising that no one would ask the right hon. Gentleman to chair the N.E.D.C., may I ask him to say what representations are taking place between the Government and the C.B.I. on the future of price restraint?

The Prime Minister: It was not necessary for there to be an invitation, because I had already indicated my intention to preside from time to time when I wished to do so.
I had a meeting with the C.B.I. after the T.U.C. meeting at which, naturally,


the question of price restraint was discussed. The Government having done their part in the Budget, and the C.B.I. having carried through and policed for nine months the policy of 5 per cent. price restraint, the C.B.I. was entitled also to expect a response from the trade unions.

Mr. John D. Grant: Will the Prime Minister use that meeting of the N.E.D.C. to pursue further the question of threshold agreements, bearing in mind that if the Government had encouraged rather than discouraged agreements of this kind, we might not be facing a railway crisis?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the matters being pursued by "Neddy" and, in particular, by the four representatives it has asked to examine this question in detail. I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question for the simple reason that, as it was explained to me when I met the T.U.C. General Council, the trade unions are themselves not in agreement about the desirability of threshold agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECURITY

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made on improving security within Government Departments in the last three months, and in particular within the Ministry of Defence.

The Prime Minister: Security in Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence, is kept under constant review.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent case concerning the Navy suggests that prima facie there is need for a tightening-up of security in naval establishments, bearing in mind that a relatively junior officer had access to material which the Law Officers of the Crown described as being of an extremely serious security nature?

The Prime Minister: I understand that in the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, to which, of course, I attach full seriousness, an appeal against sentence is pending. It would, therefore, not be proper for me to discuss the details of the case.
In accordance with the usual custom, I have informed the Leader of the Opposition that I have asked the Chairman of the Security Commission to examine a factual statement concerning this matter and to advise me about it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Apart from anything within the Ministry of Defence, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has indicated to the Soviet Embassy how unsatisfactory it is that attempts should be made by them to subvert British naval or Service personnel under the cloak of diplomatic activity?

The Prime Minister: The Soviet Government are well aware of our attitude in this matter, which we have shown clearly in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to raise the question of the future of the European Parliament at the forthcoming summit conference of European Economic Community member countries and applicants.

The Prime Minister: I should be glad to discuss this important subject with the Heads of Government of our future partners in the enlarged Community.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Was it not the Leader of the Opposition who—I presume he is, in his absence, preparing the collected edition of his letters for publication—in days of yore—[Interruption.]—called for a directly elected—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is Question time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am well aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am asking a question.

Mr. Speaker: In that event, I wish the hon. Member would make quite clear that that is what he is doing.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am always willing to bow to good advice, Mr. Speaker.
Have the Government any plans for bringing to the notice of the European Commission, which I understand is preparing a report on this matter for the Council of Ministers, precisely what are the British views on this issue?

The Prime Minister: We are in close contact with the Commission through our ambassador in Brussels. The proper way to approach this matter is to allow the Commission to put forward whatever proposals it may produce to the Council of Ministers, on which we of course have the right of consultation, but primarily to handle the issue in the discussions between Heads of Government at the summit in October. To this end I have already discussed the matter with the President of France, and I shall have an opportunity to discuss it with the German Chancellor next week and with the Belgian Prime Minister early in May.

Mr. Mendelson: Prior to addressing himself to a hypothetical and potential future European Parliament, before legislation has passed through the House of Commons, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be preferable for him to read the account in the Guardian two days ago under the headline:
The poor in Britain to pay for British entry into the Common Market.
Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of allowing the poor and other citizens of this country to have some form of democratic say before he commits this country to entering the E.E.C.?

The Prime Minister: They voted at the last General Election just like everybody else.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, after 14 years, the European Parliament has the accommodation, premises, staff, services and facilities in any way sufficient or suitable for carrying out a full democratic function?

Hon. Members: Have we?

The Prime Minister: As indicated, hon. Members might ask the same question about our own Parliament. If my right hon. and learned Friend is referring to questions of location, procedure and so on, then these are obviously matters which will be of very great concern to us when we become a member of the Community, as I have assured him personally on previous occasions. I have always believed that those who are most strongly opposed to our membership will be most strongly infavour of making the European Parliament work.

Mr. Heffer: Is not the right hon. Gentleman jumping over bridges? This country is not yet in the Common Market. Before we reach discussions as to the future of the European Parliament, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the people of this country, as he rules out a General Election and equally rules out a referendum, precisely how he intends to ask the British people whether they want to go into the Common Market?

The Prime Minister: The advantage of a bridge is that one does not have to jump over it; one has other means of making normal progress, and that is what we are doing. We had a solid vote, with a 112 majority, from Parliament. We have had the Second Reading of the Bill, and we propose to carry it through Parliament in the normal way and to enter the Community on 1st January, 1973.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Whatever method of electing members to the European Parliament is finally adopted, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the British members should remain in very close contact with the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and this is obviously one of those matters which has to be examined and discussed in detail with the other members of the Community. There are those who would like to have direct election to a European Parliament, with separate election to national parliaments. I have already expressed my personal view that I do not believe that this would generally be considered satisfactory, and that there would have to be an arrangement—not necessarily the present arrangement—by which there was the very closest connection between this Parliament at Westminster and the Parliament of Europe.

Mr. Lipton: Whatever arrangements the Prime Minister makes, will he be good enough to give an undertaking that among those arrangements will be a decision to send to the European Parliament the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)?

The Prime Minister: At this stage I cannot give any firm undertakings. I certainly take into account what the hon. Gentleman said, because I am sure that no one could be more helpful to the


European Parliament than my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Robert Carr): The Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 17TH APRIL.—Further progress on the Report stage of the Local Government Bill.

TUESDAY, 18TH APRIL and WEDNESDAY, 19TH APRIL.—Further progress in Committee on the European Communities Bill.

THURSDAY, 20TH APRIL.—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill.

Motions on the Immunities and Privileges Orders.

Remaining stages of the Betting and Gaming Duties Bill [Lords], which is a Consolidation Measure.

FRIDAY, 21ST APRIL.—Private Members' Bills.

MONDAY, 24TH APRIL.—Progress on the Report stage of the Housing Finance Bill.

Mr. Foot: First, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we wish most strongly to have a debate at a very early stage indeed on the appalling situation in Bangladesh? This should be debated in Government time. Will he undertake to consider that matter and make some proposition to us at a very early stage?
Second, as regards the proposal for the debates on Tuesday and Wednesday on the European Communities Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account that on the Tuesday we shall be discussing possibly two Amendments dealing with the question of how the consent of the people is to be secured for what the Government may be proposing, and would he take into account, and possibly make representations with us about, those two Amendments being discussed separately? That may be the best way for the House to proceed.

Mr. Carr: On the hon. Gentleman's first point about Bangladesh, I am afraid that I cannot give any commitment about it, but I take note of what he has said.
On the second point, the hon. Gentle man and the House will realise that this is a matter for the Chair. I understand that the hon. Gentleman did not object when those two Amendments were originally grouped a month ago by the Chairman, no doubt because they deal with related subjects. But, however the debate may take place, it is not unknown, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, that the possibility of separate Divisions for the two Amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the question and the answer, but we cannot go any further into the question of what happens in Committee.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Further to the point about Bangladesh, which the House must realise is extremely urgent, and appreciating that there is not time for a debate, could my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, or my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, come to the House as soon as possible and declare what Her Majesty's Government can do and are doing to carry out relief operations in that country?

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has heard what has been said, and I assure the House that I shall discuss the matter with him.

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not intervene previously on this point. I do so only because it seems that it would be a peculiar precedent to have set that you should rule that when the Minister makes a statement about business next week indicating that we are to discuss matters in Committee representations should not be made at that stage about what further representations the Government may make when we come to that proceeding. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that that could be the case, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he had thought that we had changed our minds on the desirability of those two debates being separate. That is still our view. I ask the right hon. Gentleman—I think it is perfectly in order—to make the same


kind of representations as we have made on this.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes the Chair is in some doubt as to what it should rule. I have no doubt today. The question of separate Divisions in Committee is not for me or for the House. It is for the Chairman of Ways and Means when the Committee is a Committee of the Whole House, and so I rule.

Mr. C. Pannell: Would the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to make a statement next week on the inquiry that was conducted and concluded some weeks ago into the affairs of the Leeds police? The right hon. Gentleman has been approached several times. The inquiry was started on the instigation of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing the City of Leeds, and it is a matter now causing some concern. It brooks no further delay. May I inquire at this stage whether the Home Secretary has read the report?

Mr. Carr: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has read any important document of that kind that may be before him. I shall pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments and his request.

Mr. Skeet: Would my right hon. Friend indicate when the report of the Vehicle and General Tribunal is likely to be debated in the House? It was published two months ago.

Mr. Carr: My predecessor as Leader of the House gave an undertaking to the House about this matter, and I can only assure the House that it is my intention to keep to that undertaking; but I cannot give a date at present.

Mr. Driberg: Has the right hon. Gentleman had time to consider the question of a debate—his predecessor gave firm undertakings of an early debate—on the question of the televising of the proceedings of Parliament?

Mr. Carr: I am aware of my right hon. Friend's actions and thinking on that subject. I have not yet had time to consider it, but, again, I most certainly intend to follow the indications that my right hon. Friend gave.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the weight of legislation already initiated at Stormont, including a local government Bill which is vital to the contentment and reconciliation of the communities? May we have a statement next week on how the Government propose that Parliament should be able to scrutinise and amend that legislation?

Mr. Carr: I shall discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is very early days for these matters, but I know that he is giving consideration to the sort of problem raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner: Crittal Hope Ltd., a subsidiary of Slater Walker, which has some indirect connection with the Secretary of State for the Environment—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Skinner: —has issued a leaflet to its employees indicating that they will be in a position very shortly to buy their council houses as sitting tenants. We have had no statement in the House. So will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement very quickly on what can be regarded as a scandalous situation?

Mr. Carr: I cannot accept, certainly not without much more evidence than so far produced, the implications of the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It is certainly not a matter for next week's business.

Mr. Hunt: When are we likely to have a statement on the railway dispute? Many of my constituents, although suffering a great deal of hardship and inconvenience, are most anxious to hear that the Government intend to stand very firm in face of this unreasonable wage demand.

Mr. Carr: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is meeting both sides in the dispute this afternoon, and I am sure he will wish to keep the House informed when it is appropriate. I am sure I would be wrong to make any further comment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the innuendo behind the question from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) unparliamentary to the extent that the association


of my right hon. Friend's name, while in office, with the procedure the hon. Member has outlined suggests corruption? Should it not be substantiated at once or withdrawn at once?

Mr. Speaker: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but I do not believe that the suggestion, whether it is well-founded or not, that people should be buying their council houses is necessarily improper.

Mr. Faulds: Peterborough falls again! In view of the pressure on the time of the House, would the Leader of the House ease the situation by arranging for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to withdraw her petty little Measure, the Museums and Galleries Admission Charges Bill?

Mr. Carr: I can give no such undertaking, and certainly not next week.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: In view of the public concern, shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, at the soaring price of houses and land, and also in view of the statements attributed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development in this morning's newspapers, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House urgently consider the possibility of a day's debate so that positive suggestions can be made from both sides?

Mr. Carr: I realise that the whole subject of housing is one in which the House is always properly interested, and I will take note of that, but I cannot give an undertaking of a date at the moment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Would the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make a statement, perhaps on Monday, explaining why a sponsored Question was put down last night to the Home Secretary asking for the name of the new chairman of the Tote Board when the details were published last night? Lord Mancroft is to get the job at £6,900 a year on a part-time basis. Why is a sponsored Question put down if the information is already given to the Press? Is that not abusing the normal procedures of the House? Is this not happening almost every day of the week? Will the Leader of the House confirm or deny whether Lord Mancroft has

accepted the job on the conditions that everyone knows about?

Mr. Carr: I cannot accept the implication that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done anything improper. The question of substance should be addressed not to me as Leader of the House but to the Home Secretary.

Captain W. Elliot: In view of the difficulties caused to commuters by the disorganisation already taking place on the railways, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arrange for one of his right hon. Friends to tell us that he is considering emergency parking arrangements in London—the opening of additional areas and so on—for the convenience of Londoners?

Mr. Carr: I take the point very much, and I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries to see what action he can take. I know he will inform the House about it.

Mr. David Steel: Among the commitments that the Leader of the House inherited is one for a debate on the Vehicle and General Tribunal. Although this cannot be next week, how soon will it be?

Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) has already asked me about that. I took on my predecessor's commitment, but I am sorry I cannot yet name a date.

Sir T. Beamish: Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House discuss through the usual channels the possibility of a voluntary timetable on the European Communities Bill? Would this not be in the best interests of both pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans by ensuring a full debate on all selected Amendments?

Mr. Carr: It would be very helpful to the House if such an arrangement could be made, and I shall be ready to discuss such a possibility with any hon. Member of good will. But we must see how we get on next week.

Mr. Ron Lewis: On the question of railway pay and conditions, and in view of the apparent opposition to the claim from the Government benches, will the Leader of the House agree that the


National Union of Railwaymen is quite justified in trying to establish a £20 a week minimum wage these days?

Mr. Carr: Even if I still held my previous position I would be wrong to express a view on the merits of the case. I will certainly not do so as Leader of the House.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: May I ask my right hon. Friend at this early stage in his new career about a matter which, even if it does not do so at the moment, may concern the House in due course? Having regard to his previous post, will he promise the House, notwithstanding the progress or otherwise on the E.E.C. Bill, that he will ensure that we shall have a 60-day cooling-off period for our summer Recess?

Mr. Carr: That is a proposition with which I have great sympathy. I shall be very disappointed if I cannot cool myself off for some time during the summer.

Mr. Freeson: In view of the number of non-attributable statements emanating recently from the Department of the Environment about the scandalous rise in land and property prices and the action being considered, and in view of the statement by the Minister concerned to a back bench group of Conservative M.P.s, may I press for a considered statement by the Minister on this subject and for a debate as soon as possible, in view of what has been said from the Government side?

Mr. Carr: I realise that this is a subject which the House always wishes to debate, although I cannot make any statement about it. As for a statement, I will discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: If the work to rule on the railways continues into next week, would the Leader of the House invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to procure copies of the rule book so that they may be placed in the Library for hon. Members to examine?

Mr. Ron Lewis: I will send you one.

Mr. Carr: I will ask my right hon. Friend about that.

Mr. Jay: Will the Leader of the House seriously consider the suggestion by one of his hon. Friends that next week we should debate the present extortionate rise in land and housing prices, since one main cause of this critical situation is the Government's Housing Finance Bill?

Mr. Carr: I am afraid not next week.

Mr. Heffer: I hope the Leader of the House has a more peaceful year and also that he has a cooling-off period after his strenuous efforts last year. If he is in a very good mood, which I am sure he will be if he has his cooling-off period, will he arrange for a debate on the problems of the North-West region—the unemployment, the dereliction and the many other problems? We rarely discuss the North-West in the House, and we should like to debate it at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Carr: I take the hon. Member's point. I would imagine that, as a result of the proposals in my right hon. Friend's Budget, there will be opportunities to discuss regional problems and methods of dealing with them. Private Members' debates may also provide other opportunities.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 1ST MAY

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Mr. Edward Milne.

SOUTH OCKENDON MENTAL HOSPITAL (PERSONAL) STATEMENT

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a personal explanation.
In my reply to a supplementary question by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) last Tuesday about the death of a patient in South Ockendon Hospital in February, 1969, I said that the acquittal of David Burles


on a charge of manslaughter of a fellow patient in the hospital was, as far as I was aware, not on the ground whether he was the killer but, I understood, on the ground that he was not fit to plead. I much regret that this was not correct.
The facts are that in April, 1969, Mr. Burles appeared at Essex Assizes on a charge of manslaughter and was then found unfit to be tried. He appealed against this finding, and in December, 1969, the Court of Appeal allowed his appeal and ordered that he should be tried for the offence. In January, 1970, the prosecution offered no evidence against him and he was accordingly found not guilty. I much regret that I inadvertently misled the House, and I also regret any imputation this may appear to have left on the character of Mr. Burles, who, as the right hon. Lady stated, has been completely cleared of this charge.
I particularly regret that I did not take the opportunity which the right hon. Lady gave me, with your agreement, Mr. Speaker, to correct my mistake.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Resolved,

That on Consideration of the Local Government Bill any Amendment relating to the Clauses and Schedules be considered in the following order of Clauses and Schedules, namely, Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clauses 2 to 9; Schedule 2; Clauses 10 to 19; Schedule 3; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 4; Clauses 22 to 39; Schedule 5; Clauses 40 to 47; Schedule 6; Clause 48; Schedule 7; Clauses 49 to 55; Schedule 8; Clauses 56 to 65; Schedule 9; Clause 66; Schedule 10; Clauses 67 to 79; Schedule 11; Clauses 80 to 99; Schedule 12; Clauses 100 to 168; Schedule 13; Clauses 169 to 176; Schedule 14; Clause 177; Schedule 15; Clause 178; Schedule 16; Clauses 179 and 180; Schedule 17; Clause 181; Schedule 18; Clause 182; Schedule 19; Clause 183; Schedule 20; Clause 184; Schedule 21; Clauses 185 to 188; Schedule 22; Clauses 189 and 190; Schedule 23; Clauses 191 to 196; Schedule 24; Clauses 197 and 198; Schedule 25; Clauses 199 to 208; Schedule 26; Clauses 209 to 211; Schedule 27; Clauses 212 to 214; Schedule 28; Clauses 215 to 241; Schedule 29; Clauses 242 to 259; Schedule 30; Clause 260.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

New Clause 1

MODIFICATION OF SEAWARD BOUNDARIES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS

(1) A Commission may at any time review so much of the boundary of any county as lies below the high-water mark of medium tides and does not form a common boundary with another county and may make proposals to the Secretary of State for making alterations to any part of the boundary so as to include in the county any area of the sea which at the date of the proposals is not, in whole or in part, comprised in any other county or to exclude from the county any area of the sea which at that date is comprised in the county.

(2) The Secretary of State may direct a Commission to conduct a review under this section of a particular boundary or not to


undertake during a specified period such a review of a particular boundary, and may give a Commission directions for their guidance in conducting a review and making proposals under this section.

(3) Subsections (1), (2), (5), (6) and (7) of section 62 above shall apply in relation to a review under this section as they apply in relation to a review under the provisions of this Part of this Act which precede that section.

(4) The Secretary of State may if he thinks fit by order give effect to any proposals made to him under this section, either as submitted to him or with modifications.

(5) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.53 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The extent to which Brighton beach, Bournemouth shore or Blackpool sands are part of Brighton, Bournemouth, or Blackpool is one of the intriguing mysteries of local government. Generally, the local government areas extend to low water mark, but certain waters have been recognised as parts of counties by decisions of the courts. There have been specific decisions extended to Poole Harbour, Milford Haven, the Solent, Humber and the Bristol Channel, but the precise areas to which they extend are uncertain.
More generally, estuaries involve consideration of Section 27 of the Poor Law Amendment Act,1868, which deals with accretions from the sea. That is now Section 144 of the Local Government Act, 1933. Accretions are dealt with in Clause 73 of the Bill, and do not need to be dealt with in the proposed Clause.
There are also the problems about the provisions of general Acts which extend the jurisdiction of local authorities to waters outside their areas. Some of those provisions are in the Public Health Act, 1936. There are the provisions for the definition of waters contained in the Coast Protection Acts and in the Clean Rivers (Estuaries and Tidal Waters) Act, 1960. There are the problems of jetties, piers, dock entrances and the like, and the problems from the drawing of a

boundary of a new area along the low water mark at a certain time instead of down to the low water mark. Then we have the circumstances that Bristol is treated as including an area of the Bristol Channel, extending to Flat Holme and Steep Holme.
It is undoubtedly time that the whole of this complex subject was reviewed. It is likely to become more complex in the light of modern developments, such as oil drilling, pipelines under the sea, enclosure of bays, marinas, pollution and so on. It may be desirable to bring particular areas of the sea which are not now part of local government areas into such areas, and it may be convenient to take some parts out.
But it would be a great difficulty to the House at this stage of the Bill to try to do that in detail. We now have the instrument for that review in the Boundary Commissions, and we should take the opportunity to enable the appropriate Commission, whether that for England or that for Wales, to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the inclusion in local government areas in England or Wales of areas of sea which do not form part of such local government areas but which it might be convenient to include within them.
The Clause enables both the English and the Welsh Commissions to review at any time so much of the boundary of any county as lies between the high water mark of medium tides and does not form part of a common boundary with another county, and to make proposals for altering the boundary so as to include in the county an area of sea not part of another county or to exclude any area of sea from the county.
The Clause applies the provisions of Clause 62 regarding the procedure for the conduct of reviews and sets out certain subsections of Clause 62 which are to apply to reviews by the Local Government Boundary Commission when it is dealing with these matters of including areas of sea within local government areas. The Secretary of State is given power by the Clause to effect changes by order subject to negative Resolution procedure.
As I have said, I think it right that we should take the opportunity, now that we have these Commissions, to review the


whole position of areas of sea within local government areas, and the Clause takes that opportunity.

Mr. John Roper: The Minister gave us some warning of the new Clause when we discussed the matter in Committee, but I wonder whether he could give us some further clarification.
The Clause refers to "A Commission". That could presumably be a specific commission set up for the purpose of defining the law in relation to seaward boundaries, but the Minister has referred specifically to the Local Government Boundary Commissions for England and Wales.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the law on the matter is a particularly complex body of law, and a number of ancient Statutes are involved. When the matter was discussed in Committee it was suggested that it might be more appropriate to refer questions of tidying up the law on it, as distinct from defining the particular seaward boundaries of individual counties, to a special commission. Could the hon. Gentleman clarify whether the new Clause inevitably refers to the Local Government Boundary Commission doing the work or whether it might be possible for the Secretary of State to appoint special commissioners to define the law in this matter?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones: What I have to say will be said briefly and will not be new to the Minister because of what I said in Committee.
Flintshire County Council is worried about a possible change in the existing boundary with Cheshire, which boundary is in the Dee Estuary. This is of great importance to my constituency, in that at present the Dee Estuary is largely marsh land, but if the Dee crossing which is being considered by the Government comes into effect, and if there are allied industrial developments—we have the large Shotton Steel Works which many of us hope to see developed in the near future—there will be considerable revenue in terms of rateable value.
Compared with Cheshire County Council, Flintshire County Council is a small authority, and there is considerable concern that the existing boundary may be changed to the detriment of the latter. Has the Minister any comments

to make on that? To conclude, may I remind him that the boundary to which I have referred is also the boundary between England and Wales?

Mr. James Hill: My hon. Friend will probably recall that within the last month I have referred to him a query from the Southampton Port Health Authority. I hope that the new Clause will clarify the position about how that authority will fare when the Bill becomes an Act, bearing in mind that it is under the direct control of Winchester I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to convince me that the authority is covered by the Clause.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): Perhaps I may reply first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones). What is exercising the minds of the members of the Flintshire County Council about the boundary between Flintshire and Cheshire is that it is a boundary between two counties and also between two countries, England and Wales.
The only provision in the Bill which allows for changes in the boundaries between English and Welsh counties is in Clause 64, which provides for the making of joint proposals by the English and Welsh Commissions with the consent of the county councils concerned. The new Clause confers powers on each commission with respect only to areas in the sea, and expressly excludes from those powers the power to review any county boundary which forms a common boundary with another county. Furthermore, the commissions are not able to propose the inclusion within a county of an area of the sea which is already in another county. As I see it, those two provisions make it clear beyond any doubt that the commissions will have no power to review any part of the England and Wales boundary which could lie in the sea at some point below high water mark at medium tides.
In the main—if not entirely—the boundary between Flintshire and Cheshire is in the River Dee. The new Clause applies only to areas of the sea in relation to boundaries below the high water mark at medium tides, and, therefore, does not authorise the commission to review any boundary in a river. But even if part of the boundary in question


were found to extend beyond the mouth of the river into the sea the fact that is a common boundary between two counties would preclude the commissions from reviewing it. I think I can fairly tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt that the proposed new Clause will in no sense affect the definition of the boundary between those two counties.
I know the controversy that has raged between the two counties on this topic. It is a matter for the two county councils to try to agree. If they cannot agree about where the boundary in the Dee lies, the matter will remain unresolved unless they take the issue to the High Court, because it is a legal matter which would have to be judged by the High Court. It is not a matter which should be dealt with in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) asked about the composition of the commission. The interpretation of "commission" is to be found in Clause 257 on page 187 where it says that "Commission" means
the English Commission or the Welsh Commission
and not a special commission.
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) is one for the Southampton Port Health Authority, and is not affected by the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

EQUALISATION OF RATES

(1) Subject to and in accordance with the following provisions of this section, the council of a metropolitan county acting jointly with the councils of the districts in the county may make as respects the whole or any part or parts of the county a scheme or schemes for the purpose of reducing disparities in the rates levied in different rating areas of the county.

(2) Any such scheme shall take the form of provision for the making of contributions by rating authorities in the county to other such authorities,—
(a) either directly or through the county council, or
(b) by means of adjustments by the county council in the amounts for which they precept on each of those rating authorities, or

(c) by a reallocation between those rating authorities of the amounts payable to them in respect of the needs element of rate support grant,
or by a combination of any two or more of those methods.

(3) A scheme under this section may be revoked or varied by a subsequent scheme under this section.

(4) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1966 (the resources element in rate support grants) in paragraph 6 (certain provisions to be discounted in calculating total expenditure of certain local authorities)—

(a) after the words 'in Greater London' there shall be inserted the words 'or a metropolitan county', and
(b) after the word '1963' there shall be inserted the words 'and section (Equalisation of rates) of the Local Government Act 1972' and for the word 'provides' there shall be substituted the word 'provide'.—[Mr. Speed.

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed) rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speed: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Having broken my speaking fast—it is 23 months since I last spoke in this Chamber—I thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for their good wishes to me and hope that the proceedings during this stage of the Bill will be as civilised and good mannered as they were in Committee, where I was rather more silent than I am going to be now.
The Clause provides an enabling power to authorities in a metropolitan county to make a scheme for the purpose of reducing disparities in the rates levied in different districts within the county. It is based on a similar provision in the London Government Act, 1963, with the difference that in the case of London the scheme is made by the Secretary of State.
The need for such schemes arises from the wide variations in rateable values and expenditures that can arise within a metropolitan area because of the tendency for office and shop premises with high values to be concentrated in the centre, for there to be other areas of very poor properties with low values and an outer ring of high value residential properties, and also from the fact that, because distances within these metropolitan areas are relatively small,


districts are often providing services for people other than their own ratepayers.
These features are particularly pronounced in London. It is possible that they will also be pronounced in the new metropolitan counties, but it is not clear whether that will be the situation or not. Moreover, it may be that the new rate support grant system under consideration by my Department, which it is hoped to introduce in 1974, will help to smooth out many of the irregularities in rate burden that would otherwise occur. If that is so, the new Clause may not be necessary. However, we feel that it is desirable to include this enabling power in the Bill.
The London Act provides for the scheme to be made by the Secretary of State, but in practice a scheme is made only at the request of the London Boroughs Association, which takes the initiative in preparing it. At present there are eight boroughs in London which are contributors and 25 boroughs which gain from the London scheme. They gain from the scheme through the rate support grant in London. The Department has no interest in the details of the scheme, and we feel that no purpose would be achieved in involving the Secretary of State in the new arrangements, because this is effectively the situation in London now. Clearly, it is desirable that all the authorities in the county should be agreed on whatever scheme is made, and this is provided for in the Clause.
The Clause applies only to metropolitan counties, because in those counties the districts will be the major spending authorities, with education, social services and the rest. It is expected that in non-metropolitan counties the county council will be the major spender and equalisation will thus be achieved through the county precept.
In the new Clause, which looks complicated but is designed to achieve a simple aim, subsection (1) provides a general enabling power. Subsection (2) provides that equalisation of the rates between districts may be achieved in any one or more of three specific ways—first, by transfers of money from one authority to another, either directly or through the metropolitan county council; second, by means of adjustment to the county precept, which is effectively the way that it is done in London at the moment; or,

third, by adjustments to the amount of rate support grant payable to the authorities concerned.
Subsection (3) provides for revocation or variation of the scheme, and subsection (4) provides that in calculating the resources element of rate support grant payable to each authority no account will be taken of rates or payments under the equalisation scheme. The amount of resources element payable to any authority depends upon, among other things, its actual expenditure in any particular year. It would not be right or sensible for an authority which, because it was relatively prosperous, was contributing through the scheme to another authority to receive grant on this expenditure while the poorer, receiving authority had to lose the grant.
The subsection is drafted in terms of the present rate support grant system, as provided for in the 1966 Local Government Act, but if, as intended, a new grant system is introduced before 1974, the legislation—either this complete new Clause or this particular subsection—may have to be amended to take account of this.
The local authority associations have been consulted about this. They have no objection, and it is a sensible and seamanlike precaution to introduce.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) to the Front Bench opposite. It will be pleasant to all of us to see that he has plenty of opportunity to take part in future as he has not been able to do in the past.
We are very happy to see this new Clause, and we broadly welcome its provisions. The provision is, clearly, sensible. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the inapplicability of this to the non-metropolitan counties and the non-metropolitan districts. I am not altogether sure that that fully applies. There might be situations in which such a provision might be favourable in that wider setting.
This is certainly the kind of question which calls to our minds again the value of some kind of regional structure and provision of this sort. The hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we call some further attention to this matter at later stages, when we are dealing more


specifically with some of the Amendments relating to regional matters.
The principle established here could, clearly, have great importance at a regional level. I am not altogether satisfied that it has covered the full problem which may exist, even though on a more limited basis, between non-metropolitan counties and districts. I should like to know whether the Minister's mind is completely closed to the possibility of some extension of this kind of provision if one could establish, as I think one could, its desirability. Otherwise, we welcome this provision.

Mr. Roper: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I am glad that the Government have introduced this new Clause, which extends to the other metropolitan counties the scheme devised by Professor A. R. Ilersic and used in the Greater London area. It goes much further than the transitory powers in Clause 244 of the Bill as amended, which makes for some differentiation in rating on a transitional basis, and it is extremely important, particularly in those metropolitan counties where some districts have very much greater wealth—not only in offices but also in residential and industrial property—than others.
In our conurbations, including my own, this will go some way towards meeting the very difficult financial problems of the new authorities, and to some extent some of their problems in education, which we shall debate later. But I assume that this, too, will have to be re-examined next year when the Government bring forward their more general proposals on local government finance.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

RENT CHARGES

A local authority shall not create a rent charge on any land sold by that authority.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Cocks: I beg to move. That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Clause is the next stage in a campaign that I introduced to the House through my Rent charge Abolition Bill on 16th December, 1970, when I referred to the large number of representations which had been made to me about this system in the Bristol and West Country area, where it prevails, and gave the House some details from a submission that I had made to the Law Commission on this subject.
This peculiar system was the subject of a working paper, No. 24, by the Law Commission, which said that there was a prima facie case for its abolition. Since this is such an archaic and obscure form of land tenure, it may help hon. Members who are not entirely familiar with it if I spend a moment explaining it.
Hon. Members are accustomed to think of houses being either freehold or leasehold and subject to a ground rent, but in both the Greater Manchester area and the areas around Bristol we have the peculiar system of land being freehold but subject to a rent charge. The point that I urged on the House is that this system is spreading outwards to areas of new development like some sort of loathsome plague.
The original justification for this system, which was that it was possible for a landowner to release land to a builder without receiving a capital sum but receiving instead an income from these rent charges, or chief rents as they are called in the Manchester district, no longer exists. It was this lack of any further justification for the continuation of this system which suggested to the Law Commission the prima facie case for its abolition.
On 8th November last year I asked the Attorney-General when he expected to receive the final report from the Law Commission on this matter, and he said that it would be some time this year. I urged on him at that time the need for speed.
One of the defences for this system is that people have the right under Section 191 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, to redeem. But I said that this right is not generally known, that many solicitors are not helpful, and that gross anomalies are arising out of people's ignorance of the law.
I gave an example to the House, when speaking on my Bill, of 25 years' purchase being asked for a rent charge of £2·50. When it was asked whether people had rights to redeem compulsorily, a letter was sent saying that a person asking to redeem on a compulsory basis could not be accommodated by giving the rent away at the compulsory purchase price. The letter went on to say that if such people were not prepared to pay a reasonable sum they must exercise their rights in the normal way. In January I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment the current rate for certified redemptions, and the answer was, 12·284 years purchase.
Since I brought this matter to the House, there has been a further complication in that the Lands Tribunal has given a decision on the price of a house sold on lease with 75 years to expire. In the case of Jenkins v. Bevan Thomas, after evidence had been submitted on valuation of long leases, by Mr. William Ricketts, a decision was given that Mrs. Jenkins could buy out her long lease for 10 years' purchase. If this decision becomes standard, it represents a grotesque anomaly, to be able to purchase a long leasehold at a cheaper rate than that at which one can redeem the rent charge on land which one already owns.
There is now a general feeling against these rent charges. Two private Bills came before the House recently. They were promoted by Bath and Solihull Corporations. In the sections dealing with investment of superannuation funds there was a provision that they could be put into leasehold or ground rent charges. I put it to those corporations that the passage of those Bills would be expedited if those provisions were removed. I had a letter from the parliamentary agents dealing with the Solihull Bill saying that they had asked the Committee to which the Bill was referred to delete the whole of that subsection.
All these pressures point in one direction. I call the attention of the House to the example of Bristol Corporation, which for years has not created rent charges when selling land in its possession. It has a system of direct transfer of plots to individual purchasers. This I drew to the attention of the Minister in Committee, and he said that he would

look at it with a view to possible action in future.
While this problem is not restricted to land which local authorities dispose of, I ask the House to accept the new Clause because this is a matter in which we should set an example. We should show the country that this House is prepared to take this question seriously and that, although the overall position probably has to wait for the report of the Law Commission, here we can strike a small blow for freedom from this archaic system. I have written to national developers who are in the habit of imposing these charges, and I received a reply saying that it will no longer be their policy to impose them.
I ask that in this small sector in which local authorities dispose of land we should take the opportunity to show that we are aware of this anomaly. I ask the House to pass the Clause as a small token of our intention to stamp out a thoroughly unjustifiable practice.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) has described the situation in Bristol. There is a similar situation in Manchester. On 16th December my hon. Friend referred to this practice as the "Bristol twist". In Manchester it is known as the "Manchester swindle". The situation there is even worse. This is a scandal which should be stopped at once. It is a disgraceful situation. Only hon. Members representing Manchester constituencies are aware of this vicious piece of permissive legislation. It may be legal, but it certainly is not moral.
I can quote examples of 80-year old ladies who are unable to write to me because they are suffering from arthritis and also cannot come to my political surgeries because they cannot walk. I have had to visit them in their homes. I suddenly realised that one of these old ladies is responsible for collecting the rent charge. My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) has advised me to use the word which we use in Manchester and call them "chief rents". They are a bitter bone of contention. This 80-year old lady is responsible for collecting these rent charges not for her own house but for the whole street. She cannot walk and cannot write; she cannot


move from her home, and yet she is legally responsible for collecting the rent charges from everybody in her street. How absurd can things be? This may be legal, but it is damnably immoral. It is high time that we moved in this matter.
There may be legal difficulties, but they should be overcome so that disabled people do not have to collect chief rents. My hon. Friend has advanced a reasonable and straightforward case. I speak for the town clerks of the Boroughs of Swinton, Pendlebury and Eccles. They would never dream of imposing such charges through the local authority. This Clause may go a small way towards preventing such an abuse in future. I hope that it may be accepted so that local authorities can set an example and these scandals may be removed.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: In Southampton we have another name for this—"perpetual rent charge". Notice the first word in the phrase. For 15 years I lived in a house on which there were these iniquitous charges. When I tried to purchase it I was told that I could buy it at a 25-years' purchase price. Hon. Members may imagine the answer I gave. I think it was contained in two words.
I hope that the Government will accept this Clause, Although by this Bill we cannot get rid of these wretched charges which apply not only in Bristol, Manchester and Southampton but elsewhere under various names, the Clause would represent a first step in reform, for local authorities could not then create any new rent charge. I regard this as only the first step in getting rid of the whole lot.

Mr. Frederick Corfield: I apologise to the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) for not being present when he began speaking. I take this first opportunity to congratulate him in the House on his campaign to get rid of these rent charges in the Bristol area.
I did a detailed study on them 10 years ago and found it evident that this practice was so universal that there was no choice between an unencumbered freehold and an encumbered freehold. The payment of a rent charge enables the purchaser of a house at a lesser price to

be charged additionally on the property. I believe these charges are quite wrong and entirely out of date. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the new Clause.
I accept, as the hon. Gentleman does, that, owing to the nature of the Bill, he cannot go as far as he would like. I know that the Law Commission is studying the problem, and it was kind enough to let me see its interim report some years ago and ask for my comments. I appreciate the legal problems of getting rid of the existing rent charges, but there is no legal problem in preventing such charges from being created in future. I hope that we shall take his small step towards doing so.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mary Holt: I had not intended to speak but I was surprised to hear this attack upon rent charges.
It appears that an important distinction is to be drawn between ancient rent charges, which were created hundreds of years or perhaps 150 years ago in the Manchester and possibly the Bristol areas, and new rent charges today being created by conveyancers on the development of freehold flat schemes.
It is a well known defect of the law of real property that positive convenants are not enforceable against successors in title of the original grantee. The use of free rent charge with right of re-entry to the annex to it is a well-known device for securing the enforcement of restrictive covenants on development of blocks of flats. It is in the interests of every purchaser of a flat in a freehold development—and many people want them to be freehold—that restrictive covenants should be enforceable by each flat owner against the others. That is one of the reasons why rent charges are extensively used today in freehold flat schemes.
Anyone who cares to consult the books of precedents used by conveyancers today in respect of freehold flats will find this to be the case. It appears to me that the local authority which wishes to develop a freehold flat scheme might well need to resort to this device. I beg the Government to consider most carefully the aspects of this matter as they affect enforcement of positive convenants. In


fact, the whole law of real property needs reforming in this respect, taking into consideration that rent charges ought to be abolished.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Does the hon. Lady agree with the situation where one person is responsible for collecting the rent charges of 10 or 12 others? Is that a good thing?

Miss Holt: I would say that that has arisen out of the ancient type of rent charges common in Lancashire and in the Bristol area, where one person at the end of a terrace collects them from the whole. I am not definitely in support of that but rent charges today in certain areas of development, so long as the law of real property is defective, serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) for not being present when he spoke. The area I live in and represent suffers a great deal from the question of permanent rent charges—what we in the North-West call chief rents. The working party of the Law Commission was emphatic in its view that a prima facie case for prohibition of the creation of rent charges in the future and of the extension of existing rent charges could be established.
At the beginning of January I wrote to all the local authorities in Lancashire and Cheshire putting two points to them about rent charges. I felt that, as the report of the working party has been published as far back as September, 1969, we had been waiting a long time for a final recommendation from the Law Commission and for action by the Government. During that period the extension and creation of rent charges was very considerable.
I asked the local councils that when land owned by them was sold to developers for private housing it would be on the understanding that the price paid for each plot by house purchasers would be only a properly proportioned part of the purchase price and that chief rents would not be charged. I asked them, when granting planning permission for private residential development, to make every effort to secure voluntary agreement not to create rent charges.
To the 187 letters I sent I have received over 120 replies—indeed, I received some more this week. The vast majority of the replies give general support to the idea that rent charges—chief rents—are a bad thing. Most councils agree that they would not create rent charges on land they used themselves and that they would also try to see to it that people who bought the property from them would not create rent charges.
These favourable replies have some doubts about the latter proposition, obviously, since some of the councils feel that it would mean an infringement of town planning regulations to lean on a developer not to do this, but some express interest in it. What they all feel is that there should be some statutory position on the matter through legislation. Usually local authorities are only too keen to keep powers to themselves, but in this case the majority think that the Government ought to do something. I believe that this matter is particularly important because, with the Government's inquiry into land availability, local authorities are going to be under very great pressure to sell land for housing for private development. I believe that they are also going to be under great pressure to charge chief rents because the district valuer may well say to them "You must get the best price you can", and it may well be that the most profitable price is one that includes a chief rent.
I ask the Minister to consider this question very urgently, as his own council gives general support to the proposition and has said that it would seek support from the local Member of Parliament. So I am very hopeful of his response. I realise that he has other pressures on him besides those of myself and his urban district council, but this is an urgent matter.
I think that on the whole rent charges are spreading, although I am glad that Wimpey, one of the biggest developers in the country, has told me that it will not in future charge chief rents. The charging of chief rents is a pernicious practice, and even if the amounts in many cases are not particularly high, people resent paying every half year something for which they see no result.
I support the right hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), who


says that it does not make any difference to price. As the Law Commission working party said of it, it is a bonus for the developer. The prices are the same in the North-West whether or not chief rents are charged. It is, in fact, a bonus for the developer, and we in this House should be doing something now to prevent it.

Mr. Graham Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on finding another opportunity for pursuing his campaign against chief rents. The hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) seemed to give the House the idea that only if one lived in Manchester or Bristol did one know anything about the subject. I have been dogged by it all my political career. I used to fight Islington and we had it there; I have now gone to the North-West and we have it there.
Hon. Members have made the distinction, of course, between ground rent or rent services due when a tenant holds from a reversioner, where there is a relationship of landlord and tenant for which Parliament has provided a method of redeeming, and rent charges, or chief rents, or perpetual rent charges, where no such relationship exists and it is an annual charge issuing and payable out of the land, where the payment is secured by right of distress and where it is a charge on the freehold. So there is no relationship, in this subject of chief rent, of landlord and tenant but rather that of original vendor and purchaser.
The theory of it is that when one bought the house, whether now or many years ago, one paid a lesser lump sum for it and made a payment for perpetuity. I say "the theory", because when one is buying a house subject to an ancient rent charge or chief rent, as the Law Commission has said, there is very little difference in the actual purchase price. Sometimes when a new rent is created it is quite clear, and it may be that on those occasions the purchaser pays something less in lump sum in consideration for having to pay a rent charge over a period of years in perpetuity.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South referred to the provisions for redeeming these rent charges. Those provisions apply only in certain cases. In particular, they do not apply, if my memory serves

me correctly, when there is a right of entry attached to the rent charge. Where it is not merely a matter of recovering it by distress but there is the right of entry—a sort of half-way house between the landlord and tenant and the freehold owner—then one cannot redeem.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Eccles about the unfortunate freeholder who may be made responsible to pay the chief rent for all the houses down the same street and be subject not only to distress but to a right of entry and termination of his freehold if he fails to collect and pay the rents.
There is a considerable mischief in the process. We recognised the mischief in the rent charges when we provided—Ithink in 1936—for the redemption of tithe rent charges. It was recognised that, these things having run from the dissolution of the monasteries up to the 1930s, one should be entitled to redeem them and get rid of that burden on the land.
These rents are not wholly mischievous. Until we have reformed the law on positive and restrictive covenants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) pointed out, it is not possible to enforce positive covenants except by some device, such as the rent charge, keeping the landlord and tenant relationship or a chief rent.
We cannot do this piecemeal. We cannot attack the chief rent without solving the problems about the enforcement of positive covenants. The Law Commission has been active on this subject. It issued a working paper in September, 1969, and, as has been announced recently in answer to Questions in the House, its intention is to publish an interim report within the next few months. In these circumstances, it would be quite inappropriate for a Local Government Bill merely to pick out one part of this subject and make provision for the abolition of rent charges regarding local authorities.
The rent charge is an aspect of general law relating to land. I certainly do not want to embark upon a reform of the Law of Property Act, 1925, in this Local Government Bill. Although a number of problems are peculiar to local authorities in connection with rent charges, I think that it would be wrong to deal with this fringe problem before the central


policy, which I am assured we shall be getting from the Law Commission, has been settled and property legislation has been brought forward dealing not: only with the chief rent but with all the other aspects of enforcement of covenants, and so on, in relation to freehold land.
I hope the hon. Member for Bristol, South will be satisfied with this further airing of a very important subject and will appreciate that it is impossible for me at this stage to accept his invitation to do something about it in this small area. It is a property law matter, not a local government problem. I ask him to await the report of the Law Commission, which will come in a few months.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I listened with mounting enthusiasm to the Minister's first words because I realised that, as a Lancashire Member and a member of the same profession as myself, he realises the burden these rent charges can be on a purchaser. However, I am disappointed that he will not accept the new Clause.
I want to add my voice to those who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) on raising this matter. This is not just a question of local authorities setting an example. The example which local authorities can set to end this pernicious practice is in itself important, but the Opposition are concerned about this matter from a more real, immediate and practical point of view. That point was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks). 
The Government—I do not disagree with this policy—are suggesting that local authorities which have land surplus to their requirements—we have a disgraceful, highly inflationary market in land which makes it virtually impossible for a person earning as much as £30 a week to obtain a mortgage—should sell that land for housing purposes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton clearly pointed out, we do not want local authorities in future selling land at a price fixed by the district valuer and then adding £10 or £20 a year as a perpetual rent charge. That could happen. I think that this Bill is the proper vehicle for saying to local authorities "You shall not do this". It is infla-

tionary in itself. It is a device which local authorities could use to increase the price of land that they might unwillingly sell at the district valuer's valuation. It is an immediate risk, because many local authorities, as we see from the Press and the queues of people who wait to obtain land from the local authority, are doing it now.
We can wait a long time for the Law Commission's report. It is fairly certain that it will not be made in this Session of Parliament. The Clause seeks to ensure that in future local authorities shall not create rent charges on their land. We are not dealing with existing rent charges. The Clause seeks to prohibit something being done in future.
The hon. Member for Preston, North (Miss Holt) mentioned a difficulty with some rent charges. I suggest that in a new conveyance by a local authority dealing with land for the future that could be dealt with by a restrictive covenant, not by a rent charge.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman referred to restrictive covenants. There is great value in being able to enforce positive covenants in the development of land by way of payments for certain services to the premises. This is what local authorities are using them for now. The hon. Gentleman knows my views about rent charges in general. However, I do not wish to do anything before we have something to assist local authorities to enforce positive covenants.

Mr. Oakes: Yes; but I think that this could be done by the adoption of the Clause. I thought that the Minister was going to accept it by the words he used at the beginning of his speech. If the local authority does not create a financial rent charge, since there is privity of contract for a considerable time between the local authority and its purchaser, it could deal with the matter on direct privity of contract between the parties concerned because it is not dealing immediately with successors.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter Jones) about these charges. In Lancashire this pernicious system means that a person can buy a house and have the responsibility, sometimes hardly known to him at the time he buys the house, for collecting the ground rents for the whole


street or paying them himself. It is very unpopular that a person should have to act as a bailiff for somebody else without any reward, and go up and down the street collecting this money because he is liable for it. I think this is a pernicious practice, which could go on by local authorities carrying out this system. There is a danger that they may do so immediately on the sale of land

for housing purposes, which many authorities are engaging in at the present time. If the Minister does not accept the Clause, we on this side of the House feel so strongly about it that we should be prepared to press it to a Division.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes, 144. Noes 174.

Division No. 121.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice


Allen, Scholefield
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Ashton, Joe
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Atkinson, Norman
Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Paget, R. T.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Palmer, Arthur


Booth, Albert
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pardoe, John


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Kaufman, Gerald
Pendry, Tom


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Kelley, Richard
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Kerr, Russell
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Lamond, James
Price, William (Rugby)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Lawson, George
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Cohen, Stanley
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Concannon, J. D.
Leonard, Dick
Roper, John


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul B.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Cronin, John
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Lomas, Kenneth
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dalyell, Tam
Loughlin, Charles
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sillars, James


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Skinner, Dennis


Delargy, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Small, William


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Steel, David


Driberg, Tom
McElhone, Frank
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Faulds, Andrew
McGuire, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Mackie, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Garrett, W. E.
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Gilbert, Dr. John
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wainwright, Edwin


Golding, John
Mendelson, John
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Millan, Bruce
Wallace, George


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward
Watkins, David


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Weitzmen, David


Hamling, William
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Woof, Robert


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick



Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Murray, Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.


Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael




O'Malley, Brian



NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Burden, F. A.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Biffen, John
Carlisle, Mark


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Biggs-Davison, John
Carr, Rt. Hn, Robert


Astor, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Robert
Clark, Willam (Surrey, E.)


Batsford, Brian
Bossom, Sir Clive
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Bowden, Andrew
Clegg, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Bray, Ronald
Cooke, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Cooper, A. E.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Cordle, John


Benyon, W.
Bullus, Sir Eric
Cormack, Patrick




Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Anthony
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Redmond, Robert


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid.Maj.-Gen.James
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kinsey, J. R.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Dixon, Piers
Knox, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Lane, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eyre, Reginald
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Luce, R. N.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Fidler, Michael
MacArthur, Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McCrindle, R. A.
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McLaren, Martin
Soref, Harold


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Speed, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Spence, John


Foster, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fowler, Norman
Madel, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Fox, Marcus
Marten, Neil
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Gardner, Edward
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Gorst, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tebbit, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Moate, Roger
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Grylls, Michael
Money, Ernle
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gummer, J. Selwyn
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Tilney, John


Gurden, Harold
Montgomery, Fergus
Trew, Peter


Havers, Michael
More, Jasper
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hayhoe, Barney
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hicks, Robert
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Murton, Oscar
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Holland, Philip
Neave, Airey
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Holt, Miss Mary
Normanton, Tom
Ward, Dame Irene


Hornby, Richard
Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wiggin, Jerry


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Woodnutt, Mark


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn



James, David
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. Hamish Gray.


Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis 




Quennell, Miss J. M.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

JOINT BOARDS FOR NEW TOWNS

The council of a county or of a district shall be empowered to form a joint board with a new town development corporation established within its area for the discharge of any function in which the council and the development corporation have concurrent powers.—[Mr. Davis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Terry Davis: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining that in Committee I put forward two new Clauses on similar lines dealing with the problems of new towns. The first would have made it compulsory for the development corporation of a new town

and the district council to establish a liaison committee. It would have removed the present option and made it essential that the two bodies set up a committee to discuss their common problems. The second new Clause would have introduced a permissive power for the development corporation and the district council to establish a joint board.
It was common ground in Committee between the Minister and myself that close co-operation in new towns is essential. There was disagreement between us over whether these new Clauses were necessary. The Minister did not think that they were because he thought that powers existed already. He said that he had not received any representations from those concerned in the development of new towns but he gave an assurance that he would consider any representations received between Committee and Report stages. On that assurance I withdrew both new Clauses and sent him a


detailed explanation of my reasons for putting them forward.
These reasons were based on our experiences in Redditch new town, in my constituency. I am not pressing the suggestion that it should be compulsory for the development corporation and the district council to establish a liaison committee. I accept entirely what the Minister said, that it is possible for these two bodies to establish a liaison committee now. It is necessary to encourage closer co-operation, and I hope that the Government will give some consideration to that and think about whether they could do something towards that end. Nevertheless the powers exist and the problem is to create greater willingness among the bodies to get together and discuss matters and to allow local people in new towns to express their views on the development being carried out by the corporation.
I want to press my suggestion of a joint board which is the subject of new Clause 8. I emphasise at the outset that there is no element of compulsion about this. It extends the powers of local government. It would make it possible for a district council to establish with the development corporation a joint board to carry out any function in which both bodies have similar responsibilities. This power does not exist at the moment and it is desirable to make this option available to district councils. The decision would rest with the development corporation and the district council and it would be for them to decide whether to establish a joint board and to decide the functions of that board.
One important example where development corporation and district council could usefully work together on a joint board in some new towns would be in dealing with town centre redevelopment or industrial estates. The Government are establishing new towns in places where there are already towns. That was not the case 15 years ago. The older of the new towns were established on green field sites We are now establishing new towns where there is an existing urban centre and it is in this situation particularly that I am anxious to see district councils having the option of establishing a joint board with the development corporations.
It is in this situation that a district council may already have begun a development programme. It is quite possible that the district council has already started to redevelop the town centre. It may have in its possession some of the town centre land and a programme may have been begun. When the development corporation is established, after the designation of the new town, the whole project must be handed over to the corporation. This may be undesirable in some cases. It may be that the district council wishes to continue to be associated with this venture.
Where we have a development project the district council can bear part of the burden. Where there is the development of a town centre it may involve slum clearance areas. In that situation the district council will be rehousing the tenants. This applies whether a development corporation exists or whether it is before the designation order has been made. We could have a situation where the corporation has been brought into being, is engaged on a programme of development in the town centre, and the district council is labelling certain parts of the town as slum clearance areas, accepting the responsibilities involved for rehousing with the result that the ultimate beneficiary may be the corporation. Thus the district council may be bearing part of the cost of the development of the town centre.
There is also a case for saying that the district council should be able to participate in the development of the town centre if it wishes because it bears indirect costs as a result of the development of the new town. The amenities provided in a new town fall to the responsibility of the district council. The cost is borne by the ratepayers of the existing town. It is true that the development corporation may spend up to £4 per head of population on the development of the amenities but the remainder must be paid for by the district council. It seems reasonable to suggest that where there is the possibility of a profit arising from the development of the town centre, the district council should be able to participate because those profits will then be used to offset the expenditure that the district council had to bear. In the long run the people who will benefit will be the ratepayers


behind the district council because it is they who bore the cost of developing amenities.
It is not only a question of town centre development. There could well be other functions which a district council would wish to delegate to a joint board to carry out with the development corporation. It would be possible for a district council to delegate housing maintenance to a joint board or it may choose to run a joint sewerage works or something of that sort with a development corporation. At present these powers do not exist. The only arrangement that can be made is for a development corporation to act as the agent of a district council or vice versa. It is usually the corporation that becomes the agent. This is not a satisfactory relationship because there is jealousy about status and it leads to some problems of co-operation rather than helping. This is another aspect of the argument for a joint board which I hope that the Government will consider.
I must emphasise two points about the new Clause. First, it would involve delegation. We are not suggesting the creation of a third body which would be constantly referring back to the district council and the development corporation. That would not be in the interests of the new town because it would delay development. I am suggesting that it should be possible for the district council to delegate authority to the joint board. Secondly, this power would be permissive, there is no compulsion about it. It would make it possible for the first time for a district council to engage in a joint board with the development corporation. 
In Committee the Minister made several references to the number of restrictions which were being removed from local government. On several occasions the claim was made that the Bill would sweep away 1,000 restrictions. At present there is a restriction on district councils because they cannot set up a joint board with development corporations. If the Government would accept this new Clause they could say they were sweeping away 1,001 restrictions.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Davis) has moved this new Clause with great moderation and

has echoed the debate in Committee on 20th March when he said:
As far as new Clause No. 11
—it was so numbered at that time—
is concerned—relating to the permissive power to have aboard—I am advised that no legal powers exist for a district council to establish a joint board with a development corporation. We are suggesting that, for example, in the management of housing, it may be desirable to have only one housing management organisation collecting the rents and allocating the houses. I understand that this is done in some older new towns which operate one housing list. This seems to us highly desirable, involving as it does a reduction in administrative costs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th March, 1972; c. 3007.]
My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace agreed to have a look at this matter. He has had a look at it. I have had a further look at it only this week, and I have written to the hon. Member about the points he made.
The first point which must be established—perhaps I can repeat what my hon. Friend said in Committee—is that a development corporation is set up to do a specific job, namely, to build a new town. The reasons for building it may vary and the type of new town which is built may vary. The hon. Gentleman said that we are in a new situation in that in the old days they were green field sites and that now increasingly new towns are being built around existing communities. This is true, by and large, with the exception of Hemel Hempstead, which is one of the early new towns built around a fairly substantial existing community. The one thing which all Governments have had in common in connection with new towns and development corporations is that they are designed for rapid growth in a particular area, which is desirable in the national interest.
The new Clause, if accepted, might well inject into the situation a further element of delay, but my objections to it go beyond that. Under the Clause, a joint board must involve—and this was implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said—the joint ownership of property. This is one of the matters which have concerned the Redditch Urban District Council in connection with the town centre. I am advised that even if this were desirable—and I have reservations about it—the question of the ownership


of property would have considerable legal and constitutional implications. It would mean having a long and hard look at the New Towns Act, 1965, and other aspects of legislation. I am prepared to concede that we should not reject the new Clause solely on that ground, but it would raise all sorts of fundamental issues.
The hon. Gentleman wrote to my hon. Friend and sent him some evidence from his constituents about the desirability of the new Clause. But I am advised that no other new town or local authority working with a new town has raised this matter. It seems to be peculiar to Redditch.
There was implicit in what the hon. Gentleman said, not only today but in Committee on 20th March, the question of consultation between local authorities and development corporations. I am advised that Clause 111 permits the sort of situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred concerning joint committees on housing management. In at least one new town—and there may well be more—namely, Corby, the urban district council and the corporation have a joint housing list. I understand that there is no statutory reason why this sort of co-operation should not exist. It could go far beyond the question of housing management. I would prefer it to go further because I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there should be the utmost co-operation, not only at officer level but between the members of the council and the development corporation on these matters.
The hon. Gentleman accepts that we cannot force unwilling parties into doing what he desires, but it is reasonable that all the development corporations and the local authorities working with them should have drawn to their attention, not only the debate in Committee, but the views expressed today by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that they are aware of the opinion of the House and of the Department that co-operation and consultation between the two bodies should be as extensive as possible. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to write to development corporations to this effect, and any new corporation set up will receive similar advice from my right hon. Friend.
5.15 p.m.
I accept that I have not gone as far as the hon. Gentleman wished me to go. He talked about the development corporation as if it were an outside body divorced from the ratepayers and taxpayers. It is very much a public body, and I can see that on occasions local ratepayers might wish to have the benefits and advantages of the developments taking place. With some of the partnership new towns, such as Northampton and Peterborough, which are larger authorities, joint boards have not been found to be necessary, for the reasons I have given. In the larger authorities, where there is a partnership new town, the development corporation, broadly, concentrates on the expansion areas and the local authorities concentrate on the re-development of existing areas—expansion areas being on the periphery of the town and existing areas being in the town centre. Certain services can be shared. One department may provide engineering and legal estate services for both bodies. But that is not the same as having a joint board.
Co-operation between development corporations and local authorities is, generally speaking, working well throughout the country. We have had virtually no evidence in the Department that it is not. I accept that in the context of the Bill the hon. Gentleman has raised a valid point concerning general consultation and joint committees as opposed to joint boards. There is no legal power to have property vested in a joint committee. Co-operation would be more on a consultative level, or, a sin Corby, on housing management, with joint housing lists. It could extend to a question of town centres and sewerage schemes as long as there was no vesting of property.
In view of the advice which I have received that the new Clause raises serious legal and constitutional problems and that no other local authority involved with a development corporation has made representations to the Department, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is prepared to draw what has been said today and in Committee to the attention of the development corporations to ensure, without in any way criticising the existing arrangements, that there is the maximum co-operation and consultation between development corporations and


local authorities, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the new Clause.

Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: The Minister mentioned the new town of Corby, which is in my constituency. It is plainly desirable that a new town corporation should have close links with the local council. That situation exists in Corby, and it works well. But the population of the new town of Corby and the urban district is only 45,000. With the changes, the new district will be considerably larger than that. We cannot lightly disregard that point.
When the Minister writes to local authorities pointing out the need for co-operation, I hope that he will clearly indicate that when the district councils get much bigger, as they will inevitably, they will be able to establish with the corporations the same co-operation as they have had in the past.

Mr. John Silkin: I add my congratulations to the Under-Secretary of State. I was suffering from a minor fear that, having listened in silence to all those who took part in the Committee during50 sittings, the hon. Gentleman, by leave of the House, might make every single speech—

Mr. Speed: Why not?

Mr. Silkin: Why not, as the hon. Gentleman says? He is being agreeable and charming and we are delighted to welcome him, but we do not necessarily welcome his reply. He has gone as far as he feels he can go, but it is not far enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) will recall that when he originally made this point to me I was a little sceptical and thought that there was already sufficient co-operation in most cases. I could not see the need for his proposed new Clause which has now become new Clause No. 8. I asked him whether he had in mind any criticism of Redditch. He said he was not criticising Redditch but, on the contrary, was hoping to build on the experience of Redditch.
My hon. Friend, as the Under-Secretary agreed, made his case moderately. He might have gone much further and asked for mandatory powers. What he is

asking for is a permissive new Clause which will enable a new town development corporation and a district or county council to get together on a joint board where there is a joint and profitable development. There is nothing to force a new town and a county or district council to take advantage of the Clause if it does not want to.
The Under-Secretary of State's case is twofold. He says, first, that the Clause goes a bit too far because only Redditch wants it. He says, secondly, that the power is already in the Bill, and he mentioned Clause 111. These conflicting views are not so logical as we know the Under-Secretary of State can be.

Mr. Speed: When I mentioned Clause 111I was referring to committees and not to joint boards with power to own property.

Mr. Silkin: That is the point I was about to make. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to go a stage further but I have some sympathy with him and see that, as he is at present advised, it would be difficult for him to do so.
On the other hand, my hon. Friend has a good point here. Where a joint development is being undertaken between district councils—which may in the future have quite large populations—and development corporations, I cannot see why they should not have the same power which exists in Clause 101 between district councils with relatively small populations.
As the Under-Secretary of State says, the specific job of a development corporation is the building of a new town. This seems to be separate, but it does not differ from our ideas of local government. On the contrary, we want the direct influence of the people concerned to be obvious and to play its part.
The new Clause will serve a worthwhile purpose and it will not be sufficient for the Secretary of State merely to write to those concerned suggesting that they co-operate as much as possible. That will not give them the necessary powers. For that reason, if my hon. Friend wishes to press the new Clause to a vote, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support him.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I add my congratulations to my


hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his new post. I have no new town in my constituency and therefore have no constituency interest in this, but I have some experience of a development corporation as my brother, when he was alive, was chairman of a development corporation for several years.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is resisting the new Clause because the co-operation between development corporations and local authorities is a happy one. A development corporation has a direct interest in getting a development going, and the district authority has the long-term control over it. The relationship between the two bodies is not dissimilar

from the relationship between an ordinary developer and a local authority. I can see a case for committees, but not for joint boards. The member of a development corporation, of necessity, is a different type of individual from a member of a local authority. Who would have control? I cannot see how a joint board would work unless the development corporation had financial control. If it had financial control, there would be no point in the position of the local authority being altered.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 166.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[5.35 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Hardy, Peter
O'Halloran, Michael


Allen, Scholefield
Harper, Joseph
Orbach, Maurice


Ashton, Joe
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oswald, Thomas


Atkinson, Norman
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Heffer, Eric S.
Padley, Walter


Bell, Ronald
Horam, John
Paget, R. T.


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Hunter, Adam
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.


Butler, Mrs, Joyce (Wood Green)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John




Rose, Paul B.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Judd, Frank
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Kaufman, Gerald
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Kelley, Richard
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (Nc'tle-u-Tyne)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Kerr, Russell
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James
Sillars, James


Concannon, J. D.
Lawson, George
Skinner, Dennis


Conlan, Bernard
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Small, William


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Leonard, Dick
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Stallard, A. W.


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Davidson, Arthur
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, Hugh
McCann, John
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Doig, Peter
McCartney. Hugh
Tinn, James


Dormand, J. D.
McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


Driberg, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor
Urwin, T. W.


Faulds, Andrew
Mackie, John
Wainwright, Edwin


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Maclennan, Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Marks, Kenneth
Wallace, George


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marquand, David
Watkins, David


Foley, Maurice
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Weitzman, David


Forrester, John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitehead, Phillip


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Millan, Bruce
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Milne, Edward
Woof, Robert


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)



Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molloy, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. James Hamilton.


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Moyle, Roland



Hamling, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick




Murray, Ronald King





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gummer, J Selwyn
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gurden, Harold
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Havers, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Batsford, Brian
Hicks, Robert
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bell, Ronald
Holland, Philip
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Holt, Miss Mary
Raison, Timothy


Benyon, W.
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boscawen, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bossom, Sir Clive
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bray, Ronald
Jessel, Toby
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Paul
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Chapman, Sydney
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Kinsey, J. R.
Swith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Soref, Harold


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Lane, David
Spence, John


Coombs, Derek
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sproat, Iain


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cormack, Patrick
Longden, Gilbert
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Costain, A. P.
Luce, R. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Critchley, Julian
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stokes, John


Crouch, David
MacArthur, Ian
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McLaren, Martin
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow. Cathcart)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dixon, Piers
Maddan, Martin
Tebbit, Norman


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Madel, David
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Emery, Peter
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Eyre, Reginald
Maude, Angus
Trew, Peter


Farr, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fidler, Michael
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Moate, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Money, Ernle
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Montgomery, Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Fowler, Norman
More, Jasper
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Gardner, Edward
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wiggin, Jerry


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Murton, Oscar
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Neave, Airey
Woodnutt, Mark


Gray, Hamish
Normanton, Tom



Green, Alan
Onslow, Cranley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Grylls, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. John Stradling Thomas



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

AMALGAMATION OF LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

(1) The Secretary of State, where it appears to him appropriate, may make or approve under this Act an amalgamation scheme with respect to two or more local education authorities constituted under section 187 of this Act.
(2) Before making any such amalgamation scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult with the local education authorities concerned.
(3) Any such scheme shall be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(4) In this section the Secretary of State means the Secretary of State for Education and Science.—[Mr. John Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Silkin: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The greatest task in the reorganisation of local government—the first large reorganisation of local government this century—is that of the education of our children. Inevitably, I ask whether such a reorganisation is capable of providing the best possible educational organisation. Any reorganisation of local government


must affect the whole question of education, and in the United Kingdom education is based on a local rather than on a national principle.
I believe it is absolutely right that education should be at a local level. If I had a personal choice in this matter it would be to see education put on a rather larger basis than it is at present, and even on a regional rather than on a county basis. It is certainly part of Labour policy that it should be on a larger basis than is envisaged in the Bill.
In the past we differed from the Maud recommendations by wishing to assign counties to a higher level in the direction of education. It is one of the curious ironies that the Minister for Local Government and Development, who is no great friend of the Maud Report, practically embraces that report when it deals with education. Maud said that the system should be at the lower rather than the higher tier. We have always disagreed with that view since we believe that a much more efficient education service can be provided by a larger rather than a smaller unit. We wanted education to be at county level. The Government have met us to some extent because education is at county level in the non-metropolitan counties. However, in the metropolitan counties education is at district level.
The first of our reasons for wanting to see the system at a higher level relates to the size of the metropolitan districts, most of which have a population of over 250,000. It may be argued that this is a sufficient number to provide a reasonable, and possibly even a good, education service, but the fact remains that 11 metropolitan districts have populations between 200,000 and 250,000. We are already beginning to slip in terms of population in providing a proper education service. But there are three metropolitan districts with populations below 200,000, and, frankly, my hon. Friends and I cannot see that they can provide the sort of education service that the country demands.
We may all agree that education should be dealt with locally rather than, as in some countries, nationally. What none of us can tolerate is that there should be great differences in the standards of education between one area and another, and that a child born in one

district should have a worse education than a child born in another district would seem to everyone to be something to be avoided. So much is it to be avoided that we all know of parents who deliberately move and even take jobs that they do not particularly want or that are lesser paid simply because their children will benefit from a better education.
It follows that the nearer that we can get to an equally high standard of education the better it will be for our children and for future generations. Can we say that a child who is educated in an area of the size of Inner London will have only the same chance as a child who is educated in a metropolitan district with a population of 170,000 or 180,000 somewhere in the provinces? If the Minister can assure me that the second child's education will not suffer, I will accept what he says. But all my common sense and reason tells me that it is not so, and that it ought to be so.
That is the reason why we were so intent that education should be at the higher level. However, the situation becomes more alarming when one realises that at this time of enormous change there are vast movements of population. The poorer urban areas of our country are changing in terms of population. I have talked about 11 metropolitan counties with populations of between 200,000 and a quarter of a million, and about three which have populations below 200,000. We have little or no control over how those populations will be affected in years to come.
The Bill rightly introduces the powers of the Boundary Commission to make changes, to alter the boundaries of metropolitan districts, and so on. But it cannot be doing that every minute of the day, every day of the year, or even every year. The effect is that there can be drops in population to reduce what I regard as an intolerably low level of population from an education point of view to a level that is even worse, and this can happen between one report of the Boundary Commission and another. It seems to us that something more has to be done.
5.45 p.m.
I trust that I shall remain within the rules of order if I venture into a little


history. In Committee we were defeated on our proposition that education should be at the upper level. That happened, and there it is. We must accept it. But that does not mean that we have to do the worst possible job if we accept that the metropolitan districts are to be the education authorities. I regard it as right for us to consider how we may stop the damaging situation of which I have spoken, should it occur.
Perhaps I might briefly rehearse some of the arguments which exist in favour of action being taken not only at the appropriate level but at the appropriate time. I have mentioned already that there are variations in population between one metropolitan district and another and the effects that they can have. But the tremendous advantages of an I.L.E.A. type of authority are, first, financial resources and, secondly, the value of numbers. It is dealing with much larger sums of money than any other education authority. It is dealing with far greater numbers of children. When it comes to handicapped children, whatever form the handicap may take one would expect all education authorities to do their best to see that such children received the best education service that it was possible to give them. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) told us a very moving story of children regarded as almost in educable because they were handicapped who, nevertheless, were educated to a reasonable standard because there were education authorities and others who cared. That is the great quality of our education service. It is based upon people who have a vocation, whether they are teachers or educationists apart from teaching, and who dearly love both their charges and the work that they undertake.
The advantage of an I.L.E.A. type of authority over a metropolitan district with the sort of population that I have been talking about is obvious from the start. To be able to say "There are handicapped children from this, that and the other area, and we will help them all by building a school for all of them", means that one can cope with the numbers. The first thing that one of the small authorities has to do is to consider how it can co-operate with another authority in terms of handicapped or special schools, and so

on. But it may not always be able to do so, and it may not for good and special reasons receive the response necessary. It may have a very small number of handicapped children within its area with a special handicap, and, therefore, it may not be able to give them the advantage that resources, experience and expertise properly can give them. I think that the whole House would regard that as a tragedy, because we all have this duty and compassion whatever our party may be. So the first requirement is a matter of organisation.
The second point is that when we talk about education we mean children and we mean teachers. We also mean a great deal more. We mean the buildings in which the children are taught. We mean the architects and engineers who know how to build schools. There is nothing more absurd than to have a school built by an architect who has never built a school before. It requires very special treatment. There are architects who specialise in hospitals. There are others who specialise in Crown courts. There are others who specialise in school-building. There are the people who brief the architects, employed as they are by local authorities. They are a team, and they work together. But the authorities have to have the necessary resources with which to pay them properly, and they have to be able to offer them some sort of future. It is not for us always to expect people to act purely because they love their work and to do so at a cut rate. Their sense of duty will keep them going for a long time, but from time to time they will go looking for greener pastures and will want careers which give them greater opportunity. Inevitably this must apply to those who brief architects and to architects themselves, and to an extent it will apply to the teachers.
In this situation one will have small metropolitan districts which are small in population and small in resources compared with their neighbours. Let us be under no illusion about this because it is exactly in the poorer urban areas where this position will arise. These areas will, as a result, be faced with greater problems than those of their luckier and wealthier neighbours. They will have greater difficulties, greater handicaps and greater numbers of children to teach, and


the total problem of the renovation of school buildings will be that much greater.
It is for this reason that we were, and remain, frightened about what the future might hold for them. We therefore decided that, since the Committee ruled out the possibility of education being at the metropolitan county level, we should at least see what we could do to bring back to education in the metropolitan districts, if the metropolitan districts will now be the local education authorities, something that will be lost by taking education from the county level and putting it at this lower level.
This is why we tabled the new Clause, which in effect says three things. The first is that the Secretary of State shall have power to amalgamate two or more education authorities if he thinks that that is the right course to take. In other words, if one gets the sort of situation I mentioned, of a very small metropolitan district which might reduce in numbers even more, and another district next door, the right hon. Gentleman can merge the two. He may even merge three into an education authority. Indeed, he could create a small I.L.E.A.
I am very much aware of a point that was made many times in Committee, that we must not adopt a nanny-like attitude to local authorities. Whitehall must not interfere unnecessarily. However, the Secretary of State is charged with duties. His duty is to provide the best education this country can afford to give its children, and that is why he should have this power.
We go on to say, secondly, that if the Secretary of State makes such a scheme of amalgamation, he shall consult the local education authorities concerned. In other words, he cannot do it simply on his own say-so but must consult those concerned and, therefore, by implication hear their objections, if there are any.
The third point which the Clause makes is that, even if the right hon. Gentleman creates such a scheme, he must return to both Houses of Parliament with an affirmative Resolution. In other words, he must face Parliament before any scheme is put into effect.
Hon. Members will see that this is not a case of Whitehall adopting a nanny-like attitude or of a dictatorial Secretary

of State imposing his will on efficient and reluctant education authorities. This is a case of an honest and dispassionate broker looking at a situation and, after consultation, telling Parliament "This is the right step to take because our children will get a better education more speedily if we take it."
I know that the Minister is reluctant to establish greater powers—in this he does not differ from his predecessors—where he believes that such powers already exist. He quoted the First Schedule to the Education Act, 1944. I speak from memory, but perhaps that was not the provision he had in mind. In any event, he and I know the part of the Act to which he was referring. It enables joint education committees to be set up. I could claim that as a precedent and say that I am not asking for anything unusual, and the Minister might reply that I already have virtually what I want; but that is not so.
The Minister will admit that the powers which exist under the Act are by no means universal. They are certainly not as wide as I would like them to be. Perhaps, from what I have said, he would like them to be wider. These powers can apply to, and be used in, higher education for polytechnics, colleges of further education and, in certain cases, for special schools. However, they are not universal or wide enough, and they do not come into existence as a result of the action of the Secretary of State.
We are seeking to give the right hon. Gentleman a power which, if all goes well in education, he may never use. If he never uses it, then to give him that power will do him no harm, especially with the safeguards that exist. But should something need to be done urgently he will have the power to act, under the safeguards of the second and third conditions I mentioned, with speed and efficiency.
As I showed earlier, it is no accident that the I.L.E.A. has such a high standard of education, for it is based on both population and resources. Let us, whatever we do, make no mistakes in this Bill when we consider education, of all things. Let us see that we give the best possible chance to our children.
If the Secretary of State never has to use the power that I suggest we give


him—fond as I am of the Secretary of State, I am not all that fond of giving him additional powers—we shall all be delighted. But I cannot see any harm in the Government accepting the new Clause. It can remedy a situation quickly if one needs to be remedied. If one never needs to be remedied, it need never be used.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I feel that I can support the Clause, though reluctantly and without the enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), because of his peroration. He repeatedly said that he envisaged the Clause never being used. That was far from his original enthusiasm in arguing the case for the provision and it is on that, I hope realistic, view of the Clause that I am prepared to support him, though I do so with considerable reservation.
It is time we recognised that solutions to problems are not necessarily achieved by increasing the size of the authorities and bodies which are responsible for finding those solutions. I was disturbed to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the desirability of regional authorities having responsibility for education, and I was somewhat relieved to have confirmation from him that the original proposal made in Standing Committee had been defeated by the good sense of that Committee.

Mr. John Silkin: Purely as a matter of information, we did not vote on education in the regions; we voted on education at metropolitan county level.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I apologise if I sounded confusing. I thought that I implied that my right hon. Friend's second proposal had been defeated in Committee, but I am obliged to him for making this clear.
We are now, however, considering a different concept. I was very impressed in the days when I was less mature by advice given to me by Nye Bevan, who took very strong views about local government. It was an issue about the National Health Service and other matters. The advice which he gave me with some ferocity was that if one talked about local government it had to be local government.
His simple definition of local government was that local government was administered by a councillor whose bottom one could kick—although he did not say "bottom". In other words, it is a very personal direct relationship. That is the virtue of local government.
If we are abandoning that relationship, we should think of other forms of government, but we should not call it local government because local government depends upon the responsibility being local. The cardinal unit in local government is the ward and the responsibility of the councillor within his ward. That is local government. If one reaches the stage at which that government can be no longer local it has to be looked at indifferent terms. But the aim the whole time is to provide a government which is local, and that should circumscribe one's ambitions about the size and shape of authorities.
The issue before us is the question of education. What I have urged is this. The objective the whole time should be to have the size of the authority as small as can be consistent with the discharge of the functions one imposes upon that authority. One is looking the whole time not to enlargement of size but, if possible—it may not be possible—diminution of size. One has to say not that one can disregard the element of local democracy but that the discharge of the function must be related to the essential character of local government, which is the discharge of that responsibility locally.
Anyone who has carried out diligent research will know that I have spoken previously about this matter when we discussed the reform of local government in London. The case I argued then on behalf of my colleagues in the House—I noted what my right hon. Friend said about the I.L.E.A.—was that education authorities in London were far too small. The then Minister pointed out to me that I represented the County Borough of Sunderland. I emphasise that the second factor we should bear in mind when dealing with local government is that we have to look at the geography. It was not an answer to those of us who were saying that the education authorities in London were too small to say that I was in favour of my own local education authority, the County


Borough of Sunderland; we had got to look at London. With the geography and spread of population in the London conurbation it was a nonsense to divide the educational responsibility in this very tightly packed community between the boroughs. There ought to have been a single education authority or, perhaps, two authorities for the whole of London. That could be done, because we have the means of transport and communication to make that possible.
But when one comes to the North East and looks at Sunderland, one finds no arguable reason for transferring the responsibility to Newcastle. Sunderland, particularly now that it has been enlarged by the Government—I am delighted that we have taken in Washington—is now a natural centre. It has sufficient population and resources to be its own education authority. That is why I have emphasised the two factors to be borne in mind. My right hon. Friend may be quite right. He may say that we shall have an efficient bureaucracy divorced from the people, an authority better administered from Newcastle. But, equally important, it will not be such vital, democratic local government.
We have to look at the situation and say that there is no reason for such a change. Sunderland is a good education authority. What educational function does my right hon. Friend think that we cannot carry out in Sunderland? We have a polytechnic. We ought to have a university. When my right hon. Friend rightly calls attention to the inequalities in education, it would be sensible for him to argue that there should be a national authority for the universities. There is very great disparity in our different universities. But what I—and I hope my hon. Friends—would say if my right hon. Friend put forward such a preposterous argument would be utterly counter and overriding arguments for universities being autonomous institutions. So it is in this case. The advantages of the districts remaining their own education authority considerably outweigh those of transferring the responsibilities to the metropolitan county. To emphasise this I should like to deal with my right hon. Friend's points.
My right hon. Friend raised the question of size, and I hope that I have

sufficiently disposed of it. But one of the things which has changed education in the last decade or two has been the obsession about size. It has affected schools. We have to look at schools as school communities as well as the attractions of size. We have also to counter-weigh the advantages of a school being a good local community. What I am saying with regard to the education authority equally affects the schools. Essentially, as far as possible a school should be local. Its ties with parents depend upon it being local. One is forced to admit that there are circumstances in which this cannot be provided, but that ought not to make size the objective.
My right hon. Friend talked about architects, but he knows as well as I that the great enlightenment which came in school building after the war came from Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire is not a large authority in terms of the Bill. But the lead did not come from the Ministry. It came from the grass roots. This will happen again. The ideas in school building which have come forward and some of the ideas coming forward subsequently, such as those of consortia from Nottingham, have arisen from the authorities—and so it ought to be. When talking about architects, building and construction, it is far better that the ideas should come from the people on the ground who are carrying out the job rather than people looking at it from afar. Neither on size nor on the calibre of the officials is a case made.
The third factor my right hon. Friend mentioned was handicapped children. In Sunderland we are very good with our regard and care for handicapped children. This depends very largely on a few people who have made handicapped children their particular concern. We are very proud of this. This is a responsibility which is particularly local. If one wants the best services for handicapped children, one ought to have a personal responsibility and feeling for people. I would much rather have the humanitarian care that we have, administered by people we know personally, than, perhaps, a very efficient but remote system and one less able to call upon these essential personal qualities.
Having said that, I come to my support for the Clause. I gather from my right hon. Friend that the Government have so drawn the boundaries that there are districts which are not educationally viable. I would have thought from this that the Government ought to look at the boundaries again because education is a vital local function—indeed the cardinal local authority service. I am sure my right hon. Friend is absolutely reliable about this. It may be that he was being very undogmatic when he concluded, but we had better not take the risk. It may be that the Clause will never be used, which I am delighted to hear, but let us not take the risk. A district somewhere might not have the population or resources to enable it fully to discharge these essential functions of local Government in education. It is on that ground that I am prepared to support the Clause.
In my support I add one final reservation. I hope that when the Clause has been accepted by the Government they will have another look at it when it is considered in another place because I do not think the Secretary of State would like to take the responsibility as it is here defined. We ought not to set a precedent for the Minister to destroy local authorities by diktat. There should be provision for an inquiry. I am persuaded by my right hon. Friend that there is just sufficient ground for supporting the new Clause. When the Minister accepts it, I hope that he will assure us that the Government will take steps to ensure that the local authorities will have the satisfaction of knowing, if there is any question of interfering with the boundaries now being laid down, that there will be full opportunity for them to make their views known at the public inquiry.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I see no particular reason why the Government should not accept the Clause but, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I hope that the powers contained in it will not be used very often. We ought to consider very carefully the question of the optimum size of local education authorities. One of the difficulties is that the optimum size for one type of education is not necessarily the optimum size for another. There is an important difference between

the optimum size for an efficient education authority operating higher education and the optimum size for an authority operating primary and secondary education.
My right hon. Friend will know my views because he was Chairman of the Select Committee on which I expressed them. I believe that non-university higher education, polytechnics, colleges of technology and colleges of education should be taken completely outside the local authority sphere. I do not mean that they should be entirely disconnected from local authorities. By all means let the local authorities be represented on the boards. But they should be financed separately by a national body. In this way the great difficulty of deciding the best size could be alleviated. To run a higher education authority efficiently, to be able to maintain a polytechnic or a regional college of technology—which by its name is shown to be a regional institution—requires a somewhat larger local authority than many which exist today.
In primary and secondary education the same arguments do not apply. I was not a member of the Committee when it discussed whether this aspect of education should be in the higher or lower authority within a metropolitan county. If I had been there I would have spoken strongly for its being in the lower authority. A population of 200,000 or so provide for an efficiently administered education authority. My city has a population of about 215,000. On a later Amendment we shall be arguing for that to become a metropolitan district rather than to be swallowed by the great big county of Hampshire. One of the main reasons is that we shall want to remain in a slightly larger district than at present and not to pass over to a massive county the control of our education and social services. In my city the council are almost unanimous on this—both political sides agree—and the teachers' organisations are very anxious that we should not become part of Greater Hampshire. Parents have sent me hundreds upon hundreds of letters asking me to oppose the proposals.
6.15 p.m.
The new authority will cover about 1,500,000. Many of us regard this as far too large for an education authority. It


may fit the higher education requirements but I do not see why a child's primary and secondary education should be forced into the hands of a much larger authority and thereby lose much of the personal touch it has at the moment. In the County Borough of Southampton, as in Sunderland, every parent has easy access to the local education office and can complain to the representatives of the local education authorities. The parent knows the councillors and can approach them very easily. I do not want the education area to be enlarged merely for the sake of higher education. The answer is to separate higher education and to leave primary and secondary education mainly for the smaller authority.
I have one small argument with the Clause. Subsection (2) says:
Before making any such amalgamation scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult with the local education authorities concerned.
That is fairly self-evident.
There is a case for consulting other organisations as well, including the teachers and parents. One of the difficulties has been that many local authorities in reorganisation schemes in some areas have not consulted from the beginning all the parties interested in education. Many authorities will not begin to make big changes in their education systems without consulting teachers and parents. Those who fail to do this—and there have been some of both political colours—have come unstuck and have run into fierce opposition and all sorts of trouble.
There is no reason for the Government to object to the power bestowed by the Clause. I do not think it will be used very often although it could be used in certain circumstances where there is a great concentration of population, as in London, when slightly different numerical criteria apply. In a town like mine I am satisfied that with a population of 200,000 or 250,000 we can run our education efficiently. London may need an authority covering a bigger population. I am not entirely convinced by the whole structure of the I.L.E.A. but there are two sides to the argument, just as there are two sides to the argument about whether some of the schools are too large or too small.

Mr. John Silkin: The point I was making was not so much about numbers as about resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) has the advantage of representing an area which in resources is much more affluent than some of the areas I have in mind.

Mr. Mitchell: This is true. Some other areas may have fewer resources. In some country districts different arguments may apply. There may be a case for smaller authorities because of the disadvantages of travel. These must be weighed against the advantages of population. To have to travel 30 or 40 miles to reach the local education office or to see the officials could be a disadvantage which outweighs the numerical advantage. Each must be taken into account.
There is a case for giving the Secretary of State reserve powers, but if he feels after consultation with the local education authorities, teachers' organisations and other interested bodies in the area that there would be an advantage in amalgamation—and I can see places where that would possibly be the case—he should have the power to do so. I support the Clause on that basis, but I do not think that in education greater size automatically brings greater efficiency.

Mr. Timothy Raison: I had not intended to speak in this debate, and I may unavoidably have to leave before its conclusion. But I thought that I am perhaps in a position which enables me to make a small contribution. I was simultaneously a co-opted member of the Inner London Education Authority and an elected member of the education committee of an outer London borough of about 180,000, so I was in a position to compare and contrast, as they say in examination papers, the workings of those two authorities.
The I.L.E.A. in many ways performs a great service, and to a considerable extent I echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). It had a very high dedication to the task of providing education in London, and it was also much better equipped than the smaller authority to deal with further education, as we would expect, and also special schools. Therefore, I am thus far the mirror image of the hon.
Gentleman who spoke on one side of the argument and announced that he would support the other. There are strong arguments on both sides. Looking back, I do not think that the I.L.E.A. had all the advantages, even though my outer London borough used in those days to be much reviled by the progressive forces in education because it was reluctant to go comprehensive. But I could not say that in some respects the I.L.E.A. offered a good service. It was not always superior and in certain respects it was inferior.
It is true that with respect to building there is some merit in largeness, but we have quite a lot of experience of the consortia which can be set up to join together a number of small authorities, and may take in big authorities as well. The existence of the consortia greatly diminishes the force of the argument about building made by the right hon. Gentleman.
My greatest objection to the I.L.E.A. on reflection, was its rigidity. It has an enormous area for which it adopts a particular policy, and it imposes it throughout. The instance I have in mind is its view of comprehensive education. I am not attacking now its commitment to comprehensive education, but I strongly attack its commitment to the 11–18 all-through school. It is a great tragedy that the worst form of comprehensive education should have been the one that was standardised and imposed throughout London. When the Conservatives were in power at the I.L.E.A. we made an attempt to break this mould by trying to convert the town of Thamesmead to a three-tier system on the Plowden pattern. There were enormous administrative objections, and we had to fight our officials, but so long as we were in power we were winning the battle. But as soon as Labour returned it reversed our decision and went over to the 11–18 all-through comprehensive. I do not believe that is the best way of going comprehensive. With a vast authority, it has proved remarkably difficult to experiment and vary, and we are committed to the one system. I would hate such rigidity to be imposed on other areas.
Although in theory the I.L.E.A. was better than the small outer London borough I represented, the position may be seen to be different at ground level, if we ask, "Are the schools better? Is

the atmosphere better?" I believe there is an advantage in the intimacy about which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) spoke. It is rather nice for someone on a local authority to have a chance to know all the schools. I do not claim that I knew them all. I was no doubt an idle member, and it takes time. But there is a feeling of intimacy, which seems to me rather beneficial, in a smaller authority.
Although the I.L.E.A. has not done badly in devising schemes of decentralisation, it has a form of administrative decentralisation. It is very much an official's form of decentralisation, and it is not a particularly human one. I should be reluctant to see that imposed elsewhere.
The nub of my objection to the Clause is the power it would give to impose amalgamation. The justification for amalgamation, if it exists, can only be that it is voluntarily agreed and accepted by the parties. In other words, the local authorities wishing to operate together must say of their own will that that is what they wish to do. I understand that that is not the case as the Clause stands, and that, while the Secretary of State must consult them, in the last resort he can tell them, "You will amalgamate." That is a strong objection to the Clause.

Mr. William Hamling: I hope the House will not be deceived by the jaundiced view of the I.L.E.A. held by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). When he talks about decentralisation being the official's dream in the I.L.E.A., I can only wonder whether he has ever taught there or sent his children to an I.L.E.A. school, as I have.

Mr. Raison: I have two children in I.L.E.A. schools.

Mr. Hamling: I am delighted to hear it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and not in the speaking.
It is very nice to know all the schools, but I wonder whether we are reorganising local government for the benefit of councillors. There are many aspects of the Bill, particularly in regard to education, on which I congratulate the Government and support them. The reorganisation is for the benefit of the people. I take grave exception to the parish pump attitudes of


some of my hon. Friends. For example, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) starts quoting Nye Bevan as saying that local government must be local, I remind him that Nye Bevan also said, "When I went into local government I went on the parish council, but I discovered that the power was not there, so I had myself elected to the county council, where the power was." I hope that my right hon. Friend will take those words very much to heart. The question is where are the power and finance, and where are the administrative possibilities.

Mr. James Johnson: I speak from amongst a number of pedagogues. Is it fair, is it even sensible to talk about power in a parish council in educational terms vis-à-vis the county council? Is it not better to talk about power in an excepted district of 10,000 or more, to use the old-fashioned term?

Mr. Hamling: Of course. I am not unaware of some of the other arguments, and I am coming to them.
I used to teach in Liverpool, and I once stood for the council in the constituency now represented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), a very Tory area. I lost by a record vote. Even in those days, a long time ago, I was a very strong advocate of a county council of Merseyside, and I am delighted that under the Bill we are getting that. It perhaps means the end of the County Borough of Liverpool, but so what? Liverpool has many advantages which it can perhaps transfer to places like Crosby, but there are advantages in Crosby which it could very well transfer to Liverpool.
6.30 p.m.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke of rigidity in a large authority. Having taught in London, having my children in schools there and as a member of the National Union of Teachers being well acquainted with what goes on in schools in London, particularly in the London Borough of Greenwich, I would acquit the I.L.E.A. of rigidity either in educational styles or in standards. Within a few miles of where I live there are five entirely different types of comprehensive

school. One, which my youngest daughter attends, has only 1,200 pupils, and another has 2,000. Others within a short distance are divided into an upper and lower school making almost separate schools. There is no lack of variety in a large authority such as that. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State is not now present because I wanted to say in his presence that we lay a great deal of blame for building difficulties on the rigidity of this Government in not giving us the power to get on with building as we ought.
I see nothing wrong with this Clause for it does not oblige the Secretary of State to take power. It merely says:
…where it appears to him appropriate, may make or approve under this Act…
That gives the Secretary of State an enormous range of options. Subsection (2) says:
Before making any such amalgamation scheme, the Secretary of State shall consult with the local education authorities concerned.
The word 'shall" is used and this is an obligation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) is very much to be censured, however, for drawing the Clause too narrowly. I say this particularly when I see that the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) is attached to the Clause. They seem to forget that other authorities beside county councils are involved in education.
I have particularly in mind the teachers. It is deplorable that my right hon. Friend should draft a Clause which does not mention those who actually do the job and mentions only those who talk about it. As he knows, I was educated in a little red brick school. He of all people should remember who was responsible for saving the Inner London Education Authority. It was not a political party, but the London Teachers Association. London teachers inspired this, not the Labour councils on the old L.C.C., although they gave active support. The running all the time was made by the teachers because they had great concern in seeing that the administration was sound.
Some people appear to argue that to have a viable system of primary and secondary schools a smaller authority is preferable to a larger one. I do not share


that view. I take the view that experience in London has persuaded us that in order to have a viable system we need a much larger authority than that of a typical county borough.

Mr. Willey: I ask my hon. Member to direct his attention to the question at issue here. It is the position of the districts in the metropolitan counties. They seem to be just the sort of authorities which would be acceptable to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hamling: Those of 250,000 population?

Mr. Willey: Yes.

Mr. Hamling: I do not accept that as an area suitable for secondary education re-organisation. I come from the London Borough of Greenwich, which has a population of about a quarter of a million. When the Tories—I beg pardon, I do not want to impart too much political bias into this—when the party opposite sought by the London Government Bill to make Greater London authorities all-purpose authorities, which would have made them education authorities, that would have suited the argument. Some people in Greenwich might have said that it would be a good idea for Greenwich to have an education authority in its own right. But I think of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, which is an area rather similar in size with a smaller population and much poorer than Greenwich. As a result of the Inner London Education Authority, wealthier parts of London can come to the rescue of poorer parts.
My right hon. Friend has spoken about special education. One of my constituents has a daughter who goes to a special school in Wimbledon. It would have been impossible for the London Borough of Greenwich to provide the range of special schools and special education which the I.L.E.A. provides.

Mr. Willey: I do not want to mislead my hon. Friend. I emphasised that this was a question of geography. In the case of London, when we discussed the legislation I argued that the boroughs were not the right education authorities, but that was in the context of the London metropolitan area. I ask my hon. Friend to deal with the question of Greater Sunderland and to say what argument he

has for that district not being a full education authority.

Mr. Hamling: I do not know Tyneside so well as does my right hon. Friend, but I do know Merseyside and that is a parellel case. I argued the case for a county council for Liverpool nearly 40 years ago precisely on the grounds on which the I.L.E.A. was set up. I come from Liverpool, 8, which any social scientist will recognise immediately. I lived in Huskisson Street in the heart of the poor district of that city. The best possible education for children in the poorest sections of Merseyside cannot be provided by splitting up Merseyside. To make a viable system on Merseyside, the provision has to be on a Merseyside basis.
I have particularly in mind special education and the incidence of mental illness. My right hon. Friend, with his experience, ought to know the incidence of mental illness in Tower Hamlets compared with that in other parts of London. This is true not only of London but of all the great conurbations. There are areas of great poverty, and when one sees the experience of urbanisation in the United States of America one realises that to inflict this parish pump nonsense is a scandal. One should take notice of the experience of educationists and social scientists in urbanisation on the other side of the Atlantic, where there has been a decay of urban life which we are beginning to see here. One of the purposes of the Bill is to provide that the wealthier areas shall come to the assistance of the poorer areas.

Mr. Dan Jones: Before my hon. Friend waxes too dogmatic on this issue in favour of the county councils, I wonder whether he would care to agree that there are in Lancashire a number of county boroughs—which, of course, include Liverpool—with very high standards of education. They would be most loth to give up their adminstration of education to the county. Would he agree that if that happened there would be a distinct danger that the standards which he has in mind would fall?

Mr. Hamling: There are also areas where standards are very low. I am concerned about the kids going to school in such areas. I taught them. I taught in the slums of Liverpool.

Mr. Jones: At the moment, my hon. Friend is confining himself to Merseyside and London.

Mr. Hamling: Very well, I will talk about Burnley, if my hon. Friend likes. There are areas not far from Burnley where there is great poverty and educational deprivation. This is also true of the West Riding, as my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) knows. This is one of the aspects to which he will call attention if he is fortunate enough to be called to speak. I want to see the excellence of Burnley provided for the other places near it where conditions are not so good.
Is my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) telling me that the people of Burnley will put up with lower standards if they happen to join another area? I do not believe they will. Having enjoyed excellence, they will complain if they are deprived of it. But, unfortunately, there are other areas where educational standards are poor, which have not known such excellence, which do not know what they have missed and which very often are so inarticulate that they are unable to couch their demands and desires in words or in tones which will reach the areas of the administrators or legislators. I am speaking for them, as I know is my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. Certainly, the Government, in Clause 187 and the Schedule attached to it, are concerned about them. All we want is for that concern to be confirmed, which is the purpose of new Clause 9.
I was speaking about special education—provision for blind children and for autistic children, for example. I do not know how many schools for autistic children there are in Sunderland or in Burnley. There are only two in London, one north of the Thames and the other south of it, because as yet we have only just begun to tackle the problem.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There is a first-class school for autistic children in Lancaster.

Mr. Hamling: I congratulate Lancaster but I also want to know whether there is one in Bootle or whether there is any provision for autistic children in

Bootle. It is all very well to say, "We have a good this or that". I want to see a good this or that for all children, for all autistic children. I am sure that that is what the Minister wants as well.

Mr. Willey: I ask my hon. Friend to deal with the question before the House. Let us take health as an example. We have the National Health Service but there is great disparity between its provisions in the North-East and in London. Everyone knows that. It has been made all the greater. The biggest hospital in Europe is being built in Hampstead.

Mr. Hamling: I hope that at the next election my right hon. Friend will stop in Woolwich and hear me advocating programmes for Tyneside, as I did at the last election. I told my friends in Woolwich, "It is a good thing to direct employment to Tyneside, even if it means that opportunities for employment are denied to you here." I may have lost votes by it—I do not give a damn. I come from the North and my heart is northern even though my tones these days may be southern. I am concerned to see the advantages which my children have enjoyed and which my constituents enjoy provided for the less-well-off children, for the deprived.
6.45 p.m.
I was speaking about special education, particularly for autistic children. I was speaking about provision for blind children. Such provision cannot be provided in reasonable terms by very small authorities. We are not asking in new Clause 9 for the Secretary of State to get local authorities by the scruff of the neck and say, "Amalgamate or else". New Clause 9 simply says:
The Secretary of State, where it appears to him appropriate, may…".
How permissive can one get? I speak as one who is a very great advocate of permissiveness.
I am thinking particularly of the question of finance and the poorer areas. Surely there is a case for the wealthier areas coming to the rescue of the poorer areas, especially as we have not yet reorganised local government finance.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: There is the rate equalisation grant.

Mr. Hamling: Of course. We have one in London. All I am afraid of is


that the Government will try to undo it. They are not always as enlightened as they are in Clause 187. I am emboldened by hard experience in London and of the workings of the Inner London Education Authority, particularly by the part played by teachers, by those who are doing the job and know what it is about. There is no question about where they stand. They are against the fragmentation of education and in favour of larger areas.
My last job before coming to this House was teaching in the London College of Printing. We had students from Aylesbury, Brighton, Worthing and Southend; we drew students from all over Greater London. Predominantly, of course, they came from the I.L.E.A. area. Such an institution would have been impossible in any authority other than one with the capacity of Inner London. Twickenham is one of the areas outside the I.L.E.A. and the Minister will know what a great burden that college is on the ratepayers of Twickenham. It is the largest single item in the rates there. When they want to cut the rates, they take out £1 million or so from the technical college. How shortsighted can one get?

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Surely this is an argument for taking the financing of higher education—polytechnics and colleges of further education—from local authorities and putting it on a basis similar to that of the University Grants Committee.

Mr. Hamling: I do not agree. I am subject to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have to be careful. We have to stick to the new Clause. We have advocates of local government here who, when they come to a snag, say, "Take it out of local government", completely destroying their own argument that they want education run by the local authorities. They say, "The local authorities cannot manage further education. To whom shall we give it?" In London, further education is still in the auspices of local government and that is where it should be. I do not want further education taken from local government. I want a reasonable system of local government under which we can operate the control of further education and its financing, as we do in London. I submit

that if we are to have this parish pump attitude, further education will be impossible.

Mr. James Johnson: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) an important question about the whole matter of power residing in the county councils—for example, in finance. Harking back to the late Nye Bevan's speeches on the parish councils, I asked whether, with his vast experience on Merseyside and elsewhere, he would elaborate on the case for the excepted district at local level of 10,000 or more population. Has he answered that question?

Mr. Hamling: I should regard a district of 10,000 as quite ridiculous from an education point of view. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to talk about the County Borough of Hull. I should have been much more agreeable to crack lances with him on that.

Mr. Johnson: If I am lucky enough to be called later, I shall talk about Hull.

Mr. Hamling: I did not think that my hon. Friend would be able to resist that temptation.
There is a case to be made for considering what is a desirable optimum area for particular services. I submit that the new Clause covers all the objections which have come from both sides. It is very permissive; it is not using the big stick. It is not drawn as wide as Clause 187, to which some of the objections already made might have applied, and certainly those objections cannot be made to the new Clause.
I hope that the Minister will indicate that he has the same attitude towards permissiveness in this area as we who ardently support the new Clause.

Mr. Marks: I have been reminded in this debate and in many of the debates in Committee which I have read of some of the discussions in which I took part as a local councillor when councils were considering their proposals in the late 1950s, the early 1960s, and ever since. I worked out that there was a formula: that every councillor thought that his local authority was exactly the right size unless it could take in the nearest smaller local authority. I heard councillors from


non-county boroughs below 40,000 looking back with nostalgia to the day when they ran their own education services.
My constituency illustrates better than most the problem facing the metropolitan areas, the conurbations. Half of it is in the City of Manchester; and the other half consists of two urban districts which come in the administrative county of Lancashire. At one time I taught in the City of Manchester and was a member of the Divisional Education Executive in the other half of the constituency. With my experience as a teacher, a councillor and a parent in the area, I should have preferred education to go to the large metropolitan authority—certainly for the Manchester area. I do not know about the others, but certainly for Manchester this would have been the answer.
I am glad that the Divisional Education Executive of the Lancashire County Council is to go by the board for my area, despite the fact that Lancashire has made great attempts to make the system work probably better than anywhere else in the country. It does not provide the service that a county borough can provide in such a conurbation area. I prefer outside the conurbation the unitary authority which the Labour Government proposed merging town and country and attempting to solve the metropolitan area problem separately.
One problem in the metropolitan areas is that, except for road signs, one does not know when one is going out of one town into another. For example, a new comprehensive school in the Manchester part of my constituency has the same boundary as the city itself. The people living in the Lancashire urban districts near the boundary of the comprehensive school cannot send their children to that school. Even worse, the Lancashire part is still suffering from eleven-plus selection system.

Mr. Hamling: Very backward.

Mr. Marks: We have the same problem in further education. People often want to go to a further education college in the other borough or urban district. We shall still have this problem when the Bill becomes an Act. We shall still have the boundary at the comprehensive school and parents will not have the choice of sending their children to the nearest school to their homes.
I have some reservation about the new Clause, mainly because I do not go much on the idea of joint boards. I am not altogether happy that a joint education committee between two councils will provide the best service. There is a tendency to work for one's own council rather than overall.

Mr. John Silkin: I am not contemplating in the new Clause that there would be joint boards. I think that there would be a sole amalgamated education authority with nothing joint about it.

Mr. Marks: I accept that. I take it that my right hon. Friend means that the authorities will be merged for all purposes, not simply education.
On balance, I think that the larger authority is better. It is significant that the evidence of the Department of Education and Science to the Maud Commission described these authorities—London, the West Riding, and the big county boroughs—as the pace setters. This is true. They have been the pace setters throughout on special education, further education, technical education, and so on. As public representatives we are inclined to think only of the public representatives' point of view. Education authorities may consist of councillors, but they are run by officers.
In the main, the big authorities can recruit the officers more capable of doing the job. I appreciate that there are difficulties in manning committees on the very big authorities. For instance, the Greater London Council has had difficulty in finding a chairman of finance. The chairman of the Manchester Borough Education Authority committee recently said that he has a good employer, but that as chairman of the Education Committee he has virtually a full-time job and that if he were the chairman of the Greater Manchester area he would find it even more difficult. I accept that this is one of the problems.
Nevertheless, from my experience in teaching and local authority work, I believe that the advantages of the big authority outweigh the disadvantages. We have to look for democracy at school level rather than at authority level in future. The secondary schools will be big enough to do this, and the primary schools coupled with them can certainly do it.
The people at whose doors we should be knocking are not necessarily the local councillors, but the local people who would be on the governing body: the teachers, the parents, or the representatives of parents concerned. We are not dealing with education as it has been for the past 50 years. We must realise that we shall not have another Local Government Bill of this kind for many years. The last major Bill was in about 1892. I am sure the Minister will not wish to be on the next one. No doubt he hopes that by that time he will be in another Department. I say no more.
The new Clause provides the opportunity for the metropolitan districts, the Department of Education and Science, and the larger metropolitan areas to consider again whether amalgamations can be worked. My constituency, which may be altered, will have one rich authority, a city with a great tradition of education—one of the pace setters—and a neighbouring authority which will be formed from the merging of 10 non-county boroughs and urban districts. That one will be the poorest in terms of rateable value and the least populated of the whole of the metropolitan area. I think that that authority should have the opportunity of considering whether it would be better to merge with one of the neighbouring authorities—Manchester,Stockport or one of the others. This Clause could give them the opportunity to propose that and would give the Government the opportunity to say that they agree. I urge that we approve this Clause.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: It is with some pleasure that I am able to speak very strongly against this Clause. I fully realise that the basic mistake in the Clause is in subsection (2) by completely by-passing the teachers and the parents' association in a very basic area, which may well be reflected in the thinking of the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin). That I am speaking against this Clause does not mean necessarily that I go along with my own Front Bench in their view of education in the Local Government Bill. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in March 1971:
We are determined to maintain as far as possible the deep-rooted loyalties in which

our local government was founded in the past. No one in their right senses is in favour of change for change's sake.
I could not agree more with his sentiments then and I am sure they are exactly the same now. This is called the Local Government Bill and I am surprised that there has not been an Amendment put down to change the name, because it is no more local government than any other form of government. To my mind there is and could be a great case for a regional education authority for higher education. I would grant that point, but certainly primary and secondary education is not any such case.
It seems from the remarks that have been made that if one has a fairly poor education authority, not only poor in ability but poor in finance, one is only too willing to amalgamate with a far larger education authority. But if one is fortunate, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) and myself are, to represent an area or a city where the education authority is first class and spends a tremendous amount of finance on such things as books, furniture and sports equipment, one is apparently expected to see this first-class education authority, because it is so good and is fortunate enough to be supported by a high rateable valuation, being merged into an area which, although I cannot make too many pointed remarks, spends considerably less on its primary and secondary education than do areas such as Southampton and Portsmouth.
I realise why an Amendment which was presented to the Committee failed abysmally; it was asking for local authorities of urban areas with a population of 150,000 or more to be able to control their own education authority. I realise, with the right hon. Gentleman leading for the Opposition and the fact that my right hon. Friend is not too happy to help Hampshire in this way, why we failed abysmally.

Mr. Hamling: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the area which is to be amalgamated with Southampton and Portsmouth has a higher rateable value per head of population than Portsmouth or Southampton?

Mr. Hill: No, I do not think I would accept that. The hon. Gentleman fails to understand that we have the Isle of


Wight, Southampton and Portsmouth, Andover, Basingstoke and many county areas, and by that I mean country areas. That is why we are protesting. We feel that this egalitarianism throughout our educational system will strike right at the heart of the fears that teachers and parents' associations in Southampton feel.
Consequently all I can say is that I should be most reluctant to see our educational areas grow to the million or million and a half that the right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to visualise. I should have thought that there was room here for letting cities such as Southampton, which have proved that they can run a viable and first-class education authority—and in a later Clause we hope our right hon. Friend will look at this—retain their education authority and prove still further how good it is.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: The various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate so far from both sides of the House have based their remarks largely on their experience of education in compact urban areas, either because they represent such areas or because they have been professionally engaged in education in such areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said earlier, I represent a constituency in the West Riding of Yorkshire where the local education authority is coterminous with the West Riding County Council. There it can truly be said that the present local education authority is not local because the distance from one end of the county to the other is very great, from Sedbergh in the far north west to Maltby and Tickhill in the far south east. This contrasts with the situation we have heard described in the County Boroughs of Sunderland or Southampton, or even Inner London.
The problem facing a large county authority like the West Riding—and I presume the same applies to counties like Lancashire—in this reorganisation is that instead of being merged into some larger area its whole area is being split up and fragmented. It is a fact that under the proposals in the Bill the West Riding Education Authority is to be split into no fewer than 14 different parts from an education point of view. Nine

of these parts will be the metropolitan districts within the metropolitan Counties of West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire and the other five will be the parts of the West Riding which are being assigned to other counties—Humberside, North Yorkshire, and so on—surrounding the present West Riding.
It is true to say that in any reorganisation such as this fragmentation is a much more costly and disruptive operation than merging and amalgamation. I am terribly worried by the whole business of moving from the present situation to the situation which is proposed in the Bill. Many of the arguments that have been raised in this debate so far have been centred on the ideal picture of education as we should like to see it eventually. My anxieties are centred on the transition from the here and now to the educational set-up proposed in the Bill. It is because of these anxieties, which I know are shared by educationists in Yorkshire, that I think there is need for a provision such as that proposed in the new Clause which will allow amalgamations if they are thought to be necessary, without compulsion. It is with that in mind that I speak in support of this new Clause.
I should like to press another point, which I made also in the Standing Committee, that the whole business of fragmentation particularly affects the education service. There are schools in the West Riding, and doubtless in ether counties similarly affected by the Bill, which were built to serve particular catchment areas. The plans for the schools were drawn up in the knowledge that they would serve the population of certain villages. Those areas are now being split either between different districts in the metropolitan counties or even between different counties. The whole pattern is one of confusion.
Again, the patterns of secondary reorganisation which have been drawn up in the West Riding were devised in the knowledge of local geography with particular schools serving certain areas and drawing children from primary schools in certain catchment areas. The whole pattern is being fragmented by the proposals in the Bill.
Perhaps I did not make this point sufficiently strongly in the Standing Committee, because the Minister for Local


Government and Development replied in this way:
Boundaries have to be fixed in relation to many other factors besides the educational considerations, but sophisticated arrangements exist at the present time for inter-authority or cross-boundary traffic in education—in schools, in further and special education—and there is no reason why these arrangements should not continue under the new authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D; 2nd March, 1972, c. 2204.]
It is true that there are these arrangements to deal with anomalies of boundaries between education areas. When I heard the Minister make those remarks it struck me forcibly that he had not comprehended the size of the problem which will face a county such as the West Riding under this reorganisation. The arrangements about which the hon. Gentleman spoke are those to deal with exceptional cases because of some strange quirk in a county boundary, because an urban development has overlapped a county boundary, or because some children want a special type of education, perhaps for religious or for medical reasons. Those arrangements are not geared to cope with the massive kind of splitting up that will result from the proposals in the Bill.
I strongly plead that the permissive powers which would be allowed by the new Clause, allowing education authorities in metropolitan districts to get together to run their services jointly, should be accepted.

Mr. Dan Jones: I cannot claim to have had the teaching experience that so many of my colleagues have had. However, my son, my daughter-in-law, and my daughter are members of the profession and teaching occupies a good deal of the time in my home life. In that regard Burnley figures prominently.
Because of that experience I support the Clause. Subsection (2) is fair. If Burnley were to be merged with the County of Lancashire all people in the County Borough of Burnley—I include the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party—would be greatly distressed.
Burnley has a unique record in education. Not the least of its achievements has been that it has developed one of the finest technical colleges in North-East Lancashire, notwithstanding the fact that it was until the last decade principally a

cotton town. This achievement resulted from Burnley's sense of adventure in education.
7.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State recently visited my constituency and met people of all parties who share the despair that would be felt if the education function were to be taken from Burnley. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that on that occasion he met responsible people, people who could be taken to accept a constructive view on the whole question of education. I am privileged to speak for Burnley. During the years that I have been associated with it I have learned much about the characteristics of its people. Burnley has developed an education pattern that compares favourably with that which exists in the County of Lancashire. If as a result of the Bill Burnley is merged with Lancashire, I am certain that that standard will suffer.
The Clause is reasonable. There is nothing partisan, aggressive or dogmatic about it. The Government should accept the Clause. I know that if this consultation takes place it will take up a lot of the Secretary of State's time. However, we are talking about the education of our future citizens. If the Government do not think that it is worth taking time over that, they confess an inability to project themselves into the future as intelligently as they should.

Mr. James Johnson: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) that he need feel no misgivings or inhibitions about taking part in this debate merely because he is not a teacher. I greatly enjoyed my hon. Friend's speech. Burnley is not unlike Hull and something of what my hon. Friend said spun off to me. I shall talk about Hull in that context later.
The debate has taken on a familiar pattern. Back benchers begin and often end by attacking their leaders on the Front Bench. At the end we recant and say, "After all there is something in the new Clause. Although it may never happen, it is a good thing that it is there. It is an insurance, a guarantee."
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) spoke of his excellent city, in the presence of his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell)


who incidentally is a teacher. The hon. Gentleman championed teachers. He said that the only thing that he did not like about the Bill was that there was something missing from Schedule 2. He sounded very democratic then, although later he opposed egalitarianism in L.E.A.s He asked, why did his own Minister not include a reference to teachers and parents—

Mr. James Hill: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in saying that that is what I said. I pointed out that his right hon. Friend was arguing that I had said that teachers and parents' associations had been missed out from Schedule 2. I did not make any mention of my right hon. Friend including this anywhere.

Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman did not say it, then he should have done. There seems to be a case within a case here. The case apparently is for sheer size. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was arguing about acreage, mileage or distance. He was talking about resources and the ability to provide institutions for disabled youngsters, and polytechnics. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and I were talking about excepted districts earlier. He said that these were too small. Obviously they could not have polytechnics. The case on our side is that if there is amalgamation of districts, a poor county council will be pushed along by the wealthier one.
I do not know how wealthy Hampshire is—

Mr. Hamling: Very wealthy.

Mr. Johnson: There was a somewhat abstruse and arcane point made about whether, per head of population, Portsmouth and Southampton were wealthier than such places as Basingstoke and the Isle of Wight. The point was made that the wealthier should always help the poorer. The same is true internationally. The wealthy nations such as the United Kingdom, West Germany, the Soviet Union perhaps, should help the poorer nations. In the same way we plead for this new Clause and say that the wealthier counties should, if necessary, help the poorer counties.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has gone because of all hon. Members he is the man I would not want to miss. His speeches are short and in that they are a model to us all. In addition, he speaks encapsulated common sense. He did not waste a word. In a similar encapsulated form I should like to make some points about Humberside, which is rather like Hampshire. It is not like West Yorkshire; East Yorkshire never was like West Yorkshire.
Humberside is a county of its own. We are taking in the wealthy boroughs of Hull, Scunthorpe, Grimsby and some of the outlying boroughs. We are taking in the town of Goole. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) spoke about fragmentation, and Sir Alec Clegg would be behind him 100 per cent. there. Goole is looking to us now—it always did—in a local government sense, instead of looking west to Wakefield.
I am with the Minister here as I usually am over the question of Humberside. I hope that he will not give way later to certain Amendments dealing with Lincolnshire. We have done well and Goole and other places coming to Hull are better off than elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North was a cheerful heretic. With his common sense any of us could have made much the same speech for Hull, Southampton, Derby, Leicester, Plymouth, Stoke and so on. They are all in the same boat, or the same canoe. I do not think that we have a paddle; certainly we are in difficulties.
We are like my right hon. Friend, and we believe, as does Sunderland, that education depends on good people. We could all quote examples in our cities of specialised services, for example for the old and disabled or for the handicapped. We have a magnificent record going back over many years. We shall play our part with those from the sparsely populated areas.
7.30 p.m.
It has been said, rightly, that local government depends upon geography. If there is one part of the United Kingdom which depends upon geography or which will need to conquer its geographical difficulties, it is Humberside. It will be years before we are able to get to the other


bank by means of our bridge. It will be some time before we have the necessary communications. Being in Lincolnshire is like being in the Mid-West; it is like being in Kansas or Illinois. One can travel along the highways in one's car and see farm workers half a mile away forking hay in the fields. Lincolnshire similarly is thinly populated.
When the Minister is considering the question of amalgamating large areas, with the wealthy areas perhaps supporting the weaker areas, I ask him to consider the possibility of devolution or hiving off. These areas have fine schools and fine education committees. People have done good work over decades in voluntary service. I hope that the Minister will think of allowing amalgamation, not merely of counties, but of the old district executives. Lincolnshire and Yorkshire must work together in future. There have been old antagonisms. It will be more than helpful if local people are allowed to have some power in education.
I am all for the Scunthorpes and Grimsbys and, of course, I am all the time for Hull, but we must think about the larger counties with wide open spaces which do not have too much money and which therefore may need help from a wealthy county next door.

Mr. Michael Cocks: The key point about the Clause is that it provides flexibility. I do not wish to talk about the question of size as such. Earlier there was discussion about the size of schools. Before the war I went for a short time to a school in Scotland of 1,400 pupils. No one ever queried its size because it was divided horizontally into junior, middle and senior schools. The man who administered the strap, or the tawse, as it is known in Scotland, was the head of the middle school. That was the unit of organisation within which we worked. It is possible to organise schools vertically or horizontally so that problems of size are overcome.
I support the Clause because it is extremely important that it should be possible for authorities to merge if required. New education trends will call for the use of large resources, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said. There should be the opportunity, not only for a great deal of inter-

change between staff, and particularly the inspectorate, and a widening of experience without the inhibiting artificial boundaries of different administrative units, but for the use of greater resources to solve problems which are developing in education which we have not fully grasped.
Hon. Members are aware of the very substantial changes which have taken place in the last decade or two in the primary school syllabus. The liberation of the primary school from the rigour of formal examination at 11 years of age has given very much greater freedom to the curriculum. I believe that in the coming years there will be similar pressure to rid the secondary sector of the subject-centred syllabus. While the com-partmentalisation of subjects—an hour of this and an hour ofthat—may be all right for people who are very gifted academically, it is not suitable for the vast majority of people who pass through the secondary schools, and it is not education in the true sense. We still have the subject-centred syllabus as a hangover from the way in which education was at one time geared to providing a comparatively small number of people for the universities. But this situation will change, and there will be much greater expansion in further education and higher education requirements.
I do not say this in the normal way in which we talk about this matter when we think of more people coming through the sixth forms and following the natural progression. I am thinking in terms of people who wish to pursue courses, not necessarily immediately after leaving school but possibly after a break or after they have had an opportunity of assessing their true interests and have a strong motivation to pursue a specialist course. This will give rise to a demand for such a large number of different courses of study and discipline that they can be catered for only by a larger structure.
That is at one end of the scale. At the other end there is the growing problem, which the House has recognised in the last few years, of handicapped children. In July, 1970, we took a notable step forward when we passed the Bill dealing with mentally handicapped children, destroying the soulless and arbitrary distinction between educationally subnormal children and severely subnormal children.
For the parents of gravely handicapped children there is the nightmare of what will happen to their children when they pass out of the educational system. Provision in this respect is, unfortunately, sadly inadequate. This is a problem which must be recognised by society and tackled.
The need for supporting services is recognised, but hon. Members will agree that the people who are active in work for mentally handicapped people are often the parents or close relatives of those suffering from this disability. We must getaway from this situation where they are the only people who are motivated to try to tackle this problem. We want the whole of society to be aware of it. We must be optimistic about the way in which education will develop, and we must plan in such a way that people will in later years be prepared to make a contribution towards helping handicapped people.
This current of sympathy which we hope will be generated is not enough unless it is backed by substantial resources. This work is specialised, exacting and expensive. We must think in terms of structures which are large enough to have the economies of scale which are necessary and to provide for specialisms and at the same time to incorporate the efforts of people who are prepared to give their time on voluntary work. This calls for flexibility in merging and crossing boundaries.
I welcome the Clause, which is oriented towards change. It is helpful in producing an organic structure which allows growth and is not hidebound. It enables change to be brought about and resources to be pooled, and it means that areas which otherwise might not be able to provide the new trends in education will be sufficiently large to do so.
Rural and urban areas may both be involved. The history of the changes in secondary education in England since the war shows a move towards comprehensive reorganisation. In some areas it has gone through smoothly and in others it has been a bone of contention. In Bristol, which is known for its comprehensive system, it has been a political argument over the years, whilst in the neighbouring areas of Gloucestershire and Somerset it has gone through com-

paratively smoothly with the consent of staff, parents and authorities.
The reason for this difference of approach is that in Somerset and Gloucestershire there has been no possibility of a political change in the county council; there has been no political mileage in a row about comprehensive education, whereas in Bristol a great deal of heat could be generated and there was a possibility of a change of control on the council.
Sometimes education matters are decided by politics and sometimes by personalities. I could give many instances of county councils' secondary programmes and policies being changed because of a change in chairmanship or a change in the chief officer. Such great power in the hands of one man was regarded in the Maud Report on the staffing of local government as one of the dangers of great size.
We need flexibility. We need to think in terms not of what happened when we were at school but of what are the growth points and whether they can be adequately catered for with a rigid structure. I enthusiastically support the Clause because it gives the essential element of flexibility which we shall need in the future.

Mr. Graham Page: In moving the new Clause the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) said that what he was striving to do was to get nearer to an equally high standard of education and the nearer we could get the better, and that phrase appealed to me. That is what we are trying to do in the whole of local government reorganisation. He said that people will not stand any more for great differences in standards, and I thoroughly agree with him. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) spoke of the low standards in certain areas. He wanted to see high standards over wide areas.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his enthusiasm for the large areas, was a little unfair on some of the existing local education authorities. For example, some county boroughs have carried out extremely good education work, and some of them have been even smaller in size than the ones we now contemplate. I pay tribute to them. I want to encourage them to bring their strength into the


non-metropolitan councils, and I want them not to feel that they are being dragged into an inferior system of education.
7.45 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked what function Sunderland could not carry out. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) said that the optimum size for an education authority might differ with different kinds of education, and I take his point. We are seeking the right size of education authorities. If in setting up local government units, whether within metropolitan or non-metropolitan counties, we do not get the right size for a particular local government function, let us find a device such as the new Clause as an escape valve. We may desperately need in certain metropolitan districts to build up an area which has a small population at the moment and, therefore, does not fit what we want as an education unit.
May I then look at the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept? I must not encourage him too much at this stage because I cannot accept the Clause as it stands, although I go along with him on the principle behind it. The expression "amalgamation scheme" is rather imprecise, but he explained that this is meant to be an arrangement whereby two or more education authorities would agree, or would be required by the Secretary of State after consultation with him, to join together to act as a single local education authority which would be executive and not merely advisory for the whole of their joint area.
The right hon. Gentleman jumped to his feet when a joint board was suggested. But there is no difference between the amalgamation scheme of which he speaks and the joint board. The Secretary of State for Education and Science, under Schedule 1 of the Education Act, 1944, already has power to set up a joint board between education authorities. There is little difference in the executive body which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to set up and the joint board under that Schedule. The power under the Schedule is exercisable where it appears to the Secretary of State that the establishment of a joint education board would tend to diminish expense or to increase efficiency

or would otherwise be of public advantage. That is the priority which is in the Act, but I think the priority is the wrong way round. One would look at it from the point of view first of public advantage. Power is there, and the Secretary of State may make an order after a local inquiry, unless all the councils concerned consent to its being made, in which case the Secretary of State does not have to hold an inquiry.
The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that the Secretary of State might not wish to take responsibility. But if he is taking the responsibility either when all the councils consent or after a local inquiry, then it is a responsibility which is his, or hers, at present—

Mr. John Silkin: If the Minister is right that the joint board powers given in the 1944 Education Act are more or less on the lines of what I am seeking in the new Clause, why has the power not been used before? For example, why was it not used in the creation of the I.L.E.A.?

Mr. Page: It has not been used before because, as I am advised, it is not very popular; the education authorities have not wanted to amalgamate. It may be that in certain cases they ought to have their heads knocked together and should amalgamate, but this is not the occasion to discuss that matter. I am concerned to see whether there is machinery for what we want to do and, if there is, to discover whether it is satisfactory.
I do not think the 1944 Education Act or the situation as it would be under the Clause is satisfactory, and I accept that either or both need tidying up. The power in the 1944 Act to set up a joint education board has been used on only one occasion, and that was in special circumstances in the Soke and City of Peterborough, which has now been subsumed within the area of Huntingdon and Peterborough—so that has now gone. It was used on that one occasion, and apparently has not been very popular.
When we come to the new local government structure and consider the new education authorities from the point of view of their financial resources, knowledge, manpower, and so on, we may find that we have such substantial education authorities in one area that if they are


not up to scratch in another area amalgamation will be needed to enable them to come up to the high standard which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will be worth while if we can devise machinery for amalgamation or for joint boards to be set up. It may be that such a power need not be used on many occasions, but it is right we should have some such power.
The Clause is not acceptable as it stands, and indeed Opposition back benchers do not appear to have found it entirely acceptable. It applies only to authorities which will be education authorities under the legislation, and applies horizontally rather than vertically. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) said "Do not take Burnley's education function away from us". He could solve his problem by joining with Blackburn and with some of the others around him. The Clause does not provide for joint boards between non-metropolitan counties and districts within non-metropolitan counties, and perhaps we should think about that side of the picture.
Since this subject is far more an education matter than a local government matter, I am perhaps trespassing, even in the remarks I am now making, on the sphere of the Department of Education and Science. However, I am searching for a proper local government procedure to be adopted in cases where we think it necessary to join two local education authorities.

Mr. Dan Jones: May I clarify the position about Burnley? Let me emphasise that I am speaking on this occasion for the Minister's party as well as for my own. The fear is that Burnley will become, not amalgamated with Blackburn but submerged in the County of Lancashire. Such a move would be considered in Burnley to be derogatory.

Mr. Page: This takes the debate much wider than the Clause and deals with whether the education function should be at county level in non-metropolitan counties or whether we should place it at the district level. This is not the debate which is before the House at the moment. The debate now before us relates to whether a county should join

with a county next door to produce a better education authority and whether we should have power to bring about such a situation.
If we think two districts as set up for other purposes are too small for their education functions, let us have power to amalgamate them. I shall not seek to draft the right Clause in this Bill. I hope that we shall have before the House in not too long a time an education Bill which will be the right place to make this provision. For the moment we have the provision within the Education Act, 1944. Let us tidy it up in due course in an education Bill.

Mr. Willey: The Minister has made the important announcement that an education Bill is due. Could he assure the House that it will be next Session?

Mr. Page: I did not make an announcement—I would not presume to do so. I said that I hoped we should have an education Bill before the House and that any amendment on these lines should be made in such a Bill. The situation at the moment may need tidying up, but not in this Bill.

Mr. Oakes: Although we accept that the Clause in its present form is not acceptable—and the Minister says that he would like to see the existing powers in the 1944 Act made much wider—why can he not introduce an Amendment of this sort in another place? This is surely the appropriate way to cover the situation.

Mr. Page: Having spent much of my time sitting through 51 sittings of the Committee, and having now before me a Bill of this size, I do not want to call upon the parliamentary draftsmen to put education Clauses in this Bill. It is better to leave it to the right department of government to produce the right Clause. We have an escape clause at the moment, and I hope that, following my assurance to the right hon. Gentleman that we are thinking on the same lines, he will not seek to divide the House. It would be disappointing to divide on this occasion.
I hope we can agree on the matter of principle and eventually can make the necessary reforms in the right place. I throw out that suggestion as an olive branch.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I was encouraged when the Minister began his reply, but I am afraid that his qualifications towards the end of his remarks made me less pleased with what he had to say. It would not be a good thing if the provisions in the Clause were never used. Indeed, the reason why the Clause was tabled was that we were very much aware of the changing nature of the education service and the great changes which were occurring in terms of the needs of those at the receiving end of the education service. Therefore, because we have before us the Local Government Bill, a Measure which will shape local government for a number of years to come, I must say that I was disappointed at the Minister's suggestion that we should be satisfied with his assurance that this could be done in an education Act which may come before us in future. He could not say when it would come along, and that seems much too far ahead.
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that children have only one opportunity in terms of their schooling. Children, like everybody else, grow older, and while we are debating such Clauses as this or any other Clauses or Amendments which we feel may be of assistance those children are in the situation of being dealt with by an education system as it is at present.
I become very impatient about the slow way in which we reform our education service. A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Education and Science in a very interesting speech referred to the need today for smaller comprehensive schools. Her remarks received wide acclaim in the education service and in the country generally. I share that view. But I put it to the Minister that the reason why smaller comprehensive schools are being advocated and are acceptable to the teaching profession and others in the service presents a powerful argument for accepting this Clause, which looks to the future.
8.0 p.m.
The real reason is this. When we first talked about going comprehensive and abolishing selective education in secondary schools we believed that we should need almost a minimum of 2,000 children in a school in order to get a viable sixth form. That was because of the outlook

of those in the profession. At the time I was a member of the profession. We had been brought up on this principle. It was given to us during our college days. We believed that children could be assessed with accuracy, that we could determine their intelligence quotient, and that there was a limited number of children who could profit from extended education.
Every report that we have had on the subject of education, whether it has dealt with further education, with the secondary school level or with the primary school level, has come to the same conclusion. Each one has concluded that our children are much more intelligent than we gave them credit for years ago. What is more, the number of children who have taken advantage of the facilities provided has always increased more rapidly than any statistical report has ever envisaged. Therefore, when we are formulating our proposals for local government, especially in relation to education, we have to realise that with the raising of the school leaving age and with the extension of opportunity, more and more of our children will need greater and greater facilities.
With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), we are not putting forward the Clause because we believe that bigger local education authorities automatically are better than smaller ones. We have to bear in mind the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate which considered size in relation to efficiency and said:
The evidence is that authorities of less than 200,000 are apt to be weak.
I go no further than that. I shall use that evidence.
The facilities that we expect from an education service today are infinitesimal compared with those that we shall take for granted in 20 years. When we think of the difficulties of reforming local government, we know that we are fashioning local government for a long time to come, and I for one would not like to do anything which prevented the provision of the service that our children need.

Mr. Carter-Jones: There is one important point that I have been waiting to make. There is a difficulty in getting the right size of authority geographically


and in terms of population. There is also the problem of getting the right size of rateable value. In my correspondence with the Secretary of State for Education and Science I have been assured that there will be a review of rate support grants to allow the maximum help to be given to poor authorities. Does my hon. Friend agree that organisations such as C.A.S.E. which have made representations about this ought to have a full statement from the right hon. Lady about rate support grants before this Measure becomes law?

Mr. Armstrong: I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend has made a very valid point on a matter to which I shall refer later in my remarks. Before coming to that, however, I wish to comment on the obsession of those who have contributed to the debate with the education service as it is now.
I was chairman of a borough education authority. If this debate had taken place 10 years ago and I had been permitted to speak, I should have defended the Sunderlands, the Southamptons, the Portsmouths, and so on. Being chairman of a borough authority, I thought that we were providing the ideal service. I hope that my experience in this House, my visits to other authorities and my privilege of seeing the education service over a wider range than one is able to in a local authority have convinced me that, although there are many small authorities providing a good service, we have to take note of the availability of resources and the ability of any authority to give the resources to the school that the school needs.
We have talked too much about the administrator and the local councillor in relation to the education service. I am never tired of reminding my colleagues on my authority that the most important job that we ever did as an education authority was to appoint the head teacher. If we did that well, however cumbersome or inefficient we were in the education office did not matter. If we had a good head, we were 75 per cent. of the way to having a good school.
I see the job of an education authority as giving the head teacher and his staff the facilities, resources, books and aids which will enable them to do their job.
The size of the authority bears little relation to whether the school is a local community, whether there are good relations in the school, and so on. They have nothing to do with the size of the authority. The position is the same as regards the size of the school. There are some very good big schools, and there are some shocking ones. There are some very good small schools. I could take hon. Members to some schools which are rigid and inflexible and are falling down on the job. I hasten to add that they are not in my constituency. It has nothing to do with size. It has to do with the approach inside the school and the resources available to the staff to do their job.
Looking to the future, great stress is laid in the James Report on Teacher Training on the need for teachers to come together in professional centres to have interchange, exchange and so on. This can best be done when the authority is large.
I look forward to the time—I think this will come within the next 20 years—when every secondary school child has part of his education in boarding school. One of the most exciting weeks I have spent was in an old castle in Durham where the education authority—it takes a large authority to do this—had taken over the premises and grounds for education purposes.
For a whole week children of leaving age—I regret to say that at that time it was 15—lived, studied and had lectures together. The benefit of that week to those children had to be seen to be believed.
With the passage of time, enlightened education authorities may come to feel that all secondary school children should spend at least a term in boarding school. This will be a costly business, and some of the education authorities envisaged in the Bill will find it difficult to provide this facility.
In addition, other activities can be undertaken. For example, the Outward Bound movement enables education authorities to buy places in the Lake District and elsewhere. This, too, is costly, and the I.L.E.A., on whose pattern of activities the new Clause is based, has set the style for this type of activity.
When I was chairman of the authority in Sunderland I found that most parents wanted a really effectively administered education service. They were extremely concerned when they found that Ryhope—it happens to be in the enlarged Sunderland district—had a different set of opportunities for children compared with those elsewhere in the area, and time and again I received pleas from parents for better opportunities for their children. They rightly pointed out that wherever they lived they paid rates and taxes. Whether people live in a remote rural area or downtown, their children are entitled to precisely the same opportunities as those who live in the more favoured areas.
In the coming 20 years one of the jobs of the Department of Education and Science, in co-operation with local authorities, will be to discriminate in favour of the deprived areas and their children. This needs to be done on a far greater scale than it was begun to be done by the Labour Government and is being done to a certain extent by the present Government. If we are to give our children equality of educational opportunity, the resources of the State and of large local authorities must be made available to discriminate in favour of areas which are at present denied the opportunity of giving equality in this respect.
The new Clause is a compromise, and I am convinced that education authorities, those in the metropolitan areas and even those on the higher tier, will find it a flexible compromise. It has the support of the County Councils Association. It lays down that the Secretary of State shall consult local authorities.
Any local authority which, when consulting with the Secretary of State, did not consult its teachers would soon find itself in trouble. I do not see any need, despite what some hon. Members have said, to write a provision relating to this aspect into the Clause. We know the strength of the teachers' organisations. They will make sure that they are consulted. Even so, after consultation the matter must come before Parliament in the form of an affirmative Resolution.
8.15 p.m.
I am sure that this sort of amalgamation or joint authority will be necessary.
However, because of the helpful noises made by the Minister, I advise my hon. Friends not to press the Clause to a Division. Nevertheless, I press the Minister, in view of what he said and his admission that a provision of this kind is necessary, to introduce a similar proposal in another place. Considering the Government's legislative programme, even for this Session, it is clear that we shall not have a new education Act in the near future, much as I would like to see one.
The Clause corrects a serious omission from this legislation, and it is clear that without it some authorities, even those to be established under the Bill, will find it difficult to fulfil their obligation to give our children the education they deserve. But, because of the advances in education that I hope to see in the coming 10 years and the fact that some authorities may be unable to provide the service we require, I hope that the Minister will do something to rectify the position in another place.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 10

REGIONS

(1) England shall be divided into areas to be known as regions and the Secretary of State may by order provide a name for any such region.
(2) Each region shall comprise such amalgamation of counties as are respectively described in the First Schedule to this Act as shall be determined by the Secretary of State subject to affirmative orders passed by both Houses of Parliament.
(3) For every region there shall be a council consisting of a chairman and councillors and the council shall have all the functions as shall be vested in them by this Act or otherwise.
(4) Each council mentioned in subsection (3) above shall be a body corporate by the name of the region.
(5) Such regional council shall be deemed a principal council for the purpose of this Act and all the provisions of this Act relating to the election of chairman, the appointment of vice-chairman and their term of office, to the election of councillors and their term of office, and to qualification and disqualification shall apply to such regional councils as they apply to other principal councils under this Act.
(6) For the purpose of election of regional councillors, every county shall be divided into


electoral divisions, each returning one councillor and there shall be a separate election for each electoral division.
(7) It shall be the duty of the English Commission to advise the Secretary of State as to the constitution and boundaries of such regions before 1st April 1977.—[Mr. Oakes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Oakes: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time new Clause 3—Powers of regions—and the following Amendments:

No. 233, in page 25, line 10, at end insert:
(b) the constitution of local government regions outside Greater London by the amalgamation of two or more counties or parts of counties.

No. 263, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'counties and in these counties' and insert:
'regions and in these regions'.

Mr. Oakes: This is perhaps the most important new Clause we have discussed today. The object of the Opposition in tabling it is to create a structure of local government at a level where it does not exist today, but where there is a crying need for such a structure.
We seek, at the same time, to establish this structure in a way which, at regional level, will be on a democratic basis. Members of the regional council will, if the new Clause is adopted, be duly elected by the electors and not appointed by the Minister or selected from councils.
After 51 sessions in Committee upstairs, we made some improvements to the Bill following our strong attack on the Measure on Second Reading. Indeed, the Government have been very generous in accepting Amendments. One thing we have not got over in Committee—because it would be impossible so to do in Committee—is the need to deal with the philosophy behind the Bill. We attacked the philosophy on Second Reading. It is a Bill of shoddy compromise, in which the Government have juggled with existing structures of local government to the done nothing new or dynamic to create a dissatisfaction of many people but have

new structure of local government at a level where it is needed.
The Secretary of State will know that the Maud Report saw the need for a level of local government which it called provincial. Under the Clause it is called regional level, but it is the same type of area, the same level of local government that we are seeking. The Government threw Maud out of the window along with the proposal for provincial government and many other proposals of hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of whom agreed and some of whom disagreed with some of the Maud proposals. But hon. Members on both sides of the House realise that there is a need for some form of provincial government in this country.
The Government have a commission sitting at present, the Crowther Commission on the Constitution, which will be reporting, presumably, at a fairly early date. One of the most important subjects on which the Commission will report is the amount of power, influence and self-determination that the House is prepared to give to the regions of this country. This major local government Bill makes no provision for what the Crowther Commission may say. I and my hon. Friends think that the Bill would be the appropriate vehicle for some structure of regional government to be laid down. It could be set up in the way that the Clause provides at a later date, after the Secretary of State had received advice from the Commission, because it may be many decades before we get around to restructuring local government at the level at which we are discussing it at present.
Since Second Reading, the Secretary of State, by his own actions, indicates to the House and the nation the need for some form of regional government. We had only just begun the Committee stage when the Secretary of State announced to the House his plan for water and sewerage. That plan was certainly attacked by the local government associations. Indeed, I said then that the Secretary of State had succeeded in uniting all three local government associations against him. That is a very difficult thing to do when one deals with county councils, rural districts and the A.M.C. But he succeeded in doing that.
Nevertheless, the Secretary of State is right that the precious resource of water is not endless, and the future of the water industry ought to be dealt with on a regional basis, in the very way that the Secretary of State proposed. But our difficulty is that there is no democratic authority at that level which can deal with what the right hon. Gentleman seeks to do with water. The Bill is the vehicle by which such an authority should be set up. Much of the opposition from the local government associations and from hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the regionalisation of water and sewerage lies in the very fact that existing regional boards are not democratically elected and most of their members are appointed by the Minister—although some are indirectly elected in that they are members of local authorities, and so on. But if there were a regional council, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for water could be very easily fitted into that regional council and democratic control could be exercised over the future of our water industry. That is something which we can expect as of right.
The Secretary of State rightly deals with water and sewerage in one proposal. His concern is about the future of our rivers and about pollution of the environment. That is a very proper concern which he has shown so far as Minister. But again, when dealing with sewerage, we need a democratically elected body at a regional level to deal with its problems. When the Secretary of State announced his proposals, all sorts of Amendments had to be made in Committee to the existing Clauses of the Bill. So a hotchpotch of what was well described by one of my hon. Friends as "ad hocery" took place—joint boards, boards between different authorities merged together for one particular purpose. That is not the way to deal with it.
The way to deal with it is a regional council, democratically elected, which would be concerned with the whole question of, for example, river pollution and our water resources. If ever there were an example of the need for a regional council, the action of the Secretary of State since Second Reading of the Bill proves that need.
We find a gap in other functions. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill), who is not in the Chamber at present, mentioned education at polytechnic level. In the debate my hon. Friends, in dealing with education, talked of special schools and so on. Some of the counties we have set up under the Bill are not adequate to deal with specialised education in that way. Again, the proper authority would be a regional area, covering a much wider population and geographical area than any of the existing counties. That could and would be a proper function at regional level.
One of the difficulties under the Bill involves the police. I do not know why the Government insist on treating this as a local government matter today. The Police Federation want our police service to be structured on a regional basis. They are quite right. What the Bill does for the police is to destroy and break up existing police areas by trying to mould them into the new pattern of counties by the new local government structure, which bears no relation to many police areas.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Surely the Police Federation does not necessarily want a regional basis but, where forces have been very successfully amalgamated, as they have in Lancashire, it is unwilling for those amalgamations to be upset.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Lady that they are very upset and that morale is very low because of it. The Lancashire police force is possibly the finest police force in the world. It pioneered pocket radios, the beat system, panda cars and so on. The areas of Greater Manchester and of Merseyside have precisely the same problems as those facing the Lancashire police force. They have the same crime patterns and I envisage that such areas should be amalgamated.
That kind of amalgamation is very much the sort of thing we are proposing in the Clause—a region with the same geographical area and the same population type. The Secretary of State should look very carefully at the future of the police force and whether he considers the existing local government pattern appropriate for the police. The existing police


authorities consist of half local government representatives and half magistrates' representatives—I do not know whether that is exactly the proportion—and that is local democratic control as we know it. I do not know whether there should be that degree of democratic control at lower level but it should exist at much higher levels. The police could operate much more efficiently if worked on a regional basis, so there is a need for something above county level in dealing with police functions under the Bill.
The excellent industrial development councils are organised on a regional basis. The difficulty with them is that they are not democratic, they are not elected. They cover a regional area and that kind of function should be carried out democratically. The creation of such a council under the Bill could deal with the whole of industrial development in regions. Hon. Members from the North West and the North East want to see a much greater degree of local control in their areas because the people on the spot very often know the problem far better than the man in Witehall. They also want it done democratically, and such regional councils could be the spearhead for directing new industry to their area, preserving existing industry and helping to reduce unemployment.
Most important is the fact that we in this House are not the only possessors of ideas and knowledge. People in the regions can have good ideas which could apply in their regions and which may be taken up by other regions later. Ideas could be fostered at regional level because the region would have the resources which districts and councils could not possibly have under the terms of the Bill.
There is another gap in the Bill which obviously shows the need for some form of regional council, and that is that it contains no mention of airports. Many authorities have their own municipal airports. Sometimes this creates difficulties. There is rivalry, for example, between Liverpool and Manchester and it is not certain whether a municipal council, whether it be county borough or county, is large enough and is the appropriate authority to have its own airport. Again this is a regional function. Under the Bill there is no structure to deal with this very important subject now or in the

future, important for the future of trade and for the future of local authorities.
Elected councils should be represented on an authority where they can make their views known and put forward complaints by their constituents about aircraft noise and aircraft pollution. Near any airport there are always loud cries from the inhabitants about being kept up at night by the noise of aeroplanes. They have no one they can directly approach. They could approach their Member of Parliament but they would have no one on the authority that controlled the airport. Airport development and existing airports should be administered at regional level in this country. These are just some of the existing services where there is no adequate provision under the terms of the Bill.
The value of a regional council has greater importance even than on the questiton of existing services. I can best show what I mean by an example—the example of the Morecambe Barrage. Someone sometime has to decide whether we need a barrage across Morecambe Bay and whether the water that could be saved there, the future development of the area that could take place there because of such a barrage, is feasible. The areas involved in this project are Cambria, Lancashire and Merseyside all of which would, in one way or another, have some responsibility.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Merseyside?

Mr. Oakes: Yes, even Merseyside. I know the hon. Lady was somewhat surprised, but major alterations to the coast, such as the Morecambe Barrage would involve, would have repercussions on silting and other problems many miles away. Greater Manchester would be involved. One of the great quarrels in the North-West is about Manchester's tendency to rape the Lake District for its water, and a barrage at Morecambe could provide adequate quantities of water for Manchester if someone would get on with developing it. It is a new sort of scheme which it is beyond county councils or district councils to consider. It is a proper function for a level of local government bigger in population, resources and area than is provided for in the Bill.
The same would be true of a barrage in the Wash or the Dee Estuary, though


we could be in trouble on the latter because there are not only two counties involved but the Principality, which means that two countries are involved. But we need a democratic structure at a much higher level than under the Bill.
The Clause differs from new Clause 3 in that it spells out that there shall be regions, and not as things that may be created under a subsequent Clause by amalgamation in particular instances. It is a declaration of faith that there will exist local government at a regional level. That is spelled out in the first subsection. The regions could probably best be created by an amalgamation of the existing counties by the Secretary of State, subject to an affirmative Resolution passed by the House.
The other subsections make the regional council a democratic body elected by the people, not appointed by the Minister and not created from councillors of existing counties and districts, but directly elected by people in electoral areas.
The last subsection does not envisage that such councils should be set up immediately. That is not possible. It gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to ask the English Commission which will be set up under the Bill to look into the question of regions now, to look into the question when Crowther reports, and to report back to him by 1st April, 1977 with a feasible scheme for regional government. I should say, "Report back to the Secretary of State", because I am certain that it will be not the right hon. Gentleman but one of my right hon. Friends.
The Clause is declaratory, stating that regions shall exist. It describes how they shall be formed. It says that they shall be democratically elected, and asks the English Commission to do the hard research now to advise the Secretary of State, by a given date, from when regional government could be a reality.
The time to create the structure for regional government is not in the future but now, in this Bill, a major Bill dealing with local government reorganisation. Democratic local government at that level is necessary for existing services, some of which I have described. Far more important, it could create a new dynamic in local government. New ideas could be

sparked off by the regional councils, ideas of large schemes that the House does not have time to consider and that county councils and district councils are too small in resources, and sometimes in ideas, to consider. The Clause creates the possibilities of such councils existing, and therefore I ask the House to adopt it.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I much regret that more hon. Members were not present to hear the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and to join in the debate.
This has been a fascinating day. I doubt whether there has ever been a Report stage before in which the two Whips of the Committee have spoken so much on the first day. This seems an historic precedent. Both of them spoke very well. I am particularly grateful for the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong). The speech of the hon. Member for Widnes was typical of the standards achieved during the Committee stage. I pay tribute both to the Minister for Local Government and Development and the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) for the high quality of debating in their leadership in Committee. I shall refer any critic of the House of Commons and the way in which we deal with legislation to the proceedings on the Local Government Bill.
This debate about the potentialities of democratically-elected regional government is important. I must say clearly that from the beginning the Government's position, as stated by the Minister for Local Government and Development, is the Government intention, as was that of the previous Government, to await the full findings of the Crowther Commission. I remind the hon. Member for Widnes that it was the previous Government, when the Maud Committee recommended provincial areas, which decided not to proceed with them but to await the report of the Crowther Commission before coming to conclusions on the future of regional government. That is the position of this Government.
I took the trouble to see the late Lord Crowther, before proceeding with my White Paper and legislation, to obtain from him his view whether the ideas and concepts which I had in mind were likely to conflict with recommendations which


the Commission would produce. Although obviously I cannot quote what he said in a private discussion, I can say that his view was that the lines of local government reform suggested by the Government would in no way conflict with the type of suggestions which the Commission would put forward. Alas, there has been the death of Lord Crowther since then. Now a new Chairman has been elected and the Commission hopes to complete its work by the end of the year. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to consider the full implications of the recommendations made by the Commission.
Perhaps I should take the opportunity, as this is my first speech on Report on this Bill, of giving my general thoughts as to the importance of regional policies and regional strategies and the manner in which certain difficulties arise over the type of suggestion put forward by this Clause. The very arguments used by the hon. Member for Widnes were a criticism of this type of concept. For example, he quoted as the kind of function which he had in mind for regional authorities, certain types of higher education, the police, water and airports. Any thought given to this topic would quickly bring one to the conclusion that it is at least quite probable that the ideal geographical area for the executive functioning of a police force would be nothing like the ideal area for organisation of water and sewerage. That is one of the difficulties we shall all face when we come to consider regional government.
I would defend my proposals for water which are based completely and utterly on the river systems of the country, but they certainly would not coincide with what anyone in the House would suggest for the geographical and political structure of regions. The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger), who produced a most important report on sewerage, would agree that the water cycle must be the basis of reform in terms of water and sewerage. To have geographical boundaries which cut across river systems and divided them into two or perhaps three would take away some of the basic advantages of the proposals for water.
That does not mean that one does not want to have a democratic influence on questions of water and sewerage. The need for that influence is due to the effects upon localities, and therefore, in my proposals, I want to see that the local authorities throughout the whole of the river area will have a right and a very considerable say in the organisation and policy decision-taking of these authorities. The authorities must also have the ability to recruit people of high engineering talent and skill because, as well as having great social implications, water and sewerage present major technical and scientific problems.
8.45 p.m.
The case is likewise with airports. If one had, for example, the type of provinces suggested by the Maud Report—or, even worse, if one had the size of provinces or regions suggested by Mr. Senior in his minority report—one would need joint action on a massive scale for airports. An airport situated in one region could be ideal for use by several other regions, but if one started to develop a policy where a function of each region was responsibility for airports within that region, this might well not be the right instrument when one takes into account all the problems concerned in building up modern airports. It was interesting to see, when I rejected the extra runway at Leeds, how quickly people got machinery together to look at regional alternatives, but there was, of course, a flexible organisation for using the local authorities in the area and the regional economic planning council.
Both sides of the House would agree that one wants to develop regional policies, and perhaps the most important factor is the development of regional land use strategies. The Labour Government produced an instrument of doing this by a combination of the local planning authorities, the central Government and the economic planning councils. They produced what I thought was a very good South-East land use planning strategy. That strategy will be of considerable significance and importance in future planning in the South East.
The present Government have announced their intention of creating in the lifetime of this Parliament a basic regional economic planning strategy for each of the present agreed and approved regions.
This will be done by a combination using the local planning authorities because, unless they have a firm say in a regional planning strategy, the practice of implementing that strategy becomes a nonsense. There would be nothing more dangerous in having a freely elected regional local authority, with the power to prepare a regional land use strategy, than if that authority went in complete contradiction to all the local planning authorities, with the result that local and individual planning decisions failed to agree with the strategic concepts. In the South-East plannting strategy, the agreement of the local planning authorities was obtained. The local authorities have prepared, agreed and provided their comments and have therefore made a positive contribution to the final framework of the South-East strategy.
I turn to regional policy in developing land use planning. No one is more passionately in favour of having the democratic process applied to this than I am. My position is that, although the democratic process has many disadvantages, they are nothing like the disadvantages of the non-democratic process. But that does not mean that there is not considerable advantage to the Government in having some form of machinery to bring in people of a wide range of interests to give advice on regional policies.
When we came into office the economic planning councils already existed. It would have been fairly easy for me to get rid of them straight away. They had no great popularity with the then Opposition, now the Government.
The composition of economic planning councils was such that they could provide a very useful manner of gathering together leading people from industry, commerce, the social amenities of the area, and the trade unions to give a broad view on what they considered were important factors in the future development of their regions.
The South-East Economic Planning Council played a considerable part in influencing the final result of the planning strategy for the South East. Certainly the recent announcements made by the Government on regional policy, with the various industrial and infrastructure proposals, benefited considerably from

the advice and comments which came in from the economic planning councils over the last couple of years.
Since I have had responsibility for appointing people to those planning councils I have endeavoured to appoint people, as indeed did my predecessors, irrespective of their party politics, who have some positive contribution to make and who, not because of any objection to democracy but because of their activities elsewhere, will not go in for the electioneering process and commit themselves to constant committees, and so on, but are willing to do a lot of paperwork and examination of proposals to develop their regions.
From my experience over the last 20 months, I consider that we should not be frightened of putting into any future machinery some sort of advisory service on these topics appointed by Ministers, but with the advice of the T.U.C., the C.B.I., and other organisations within the regions.
I turn to some of the other problems where regional planning is needed: I have dealt with water. I think that this problem must be dealt with on a river system basis.
Regarding transportation as a whole, I think that, whatever regions are created, some of the wider transportation considerations are bound to be inter-regional, not just the transport problems within the individual regions.
That is why a department such as my own, with responsibility for transportation, will have a leading rôle to play in looking at what is necessary in terms of a national network. When I first examined the problems of road access to the North-East, where already a great deal had been done before we came into office, and considered what was to be done during the next five or ten years to improve communications for the development areas, one factor which we found important was that because of the inadequacy of roads in other parts of the country the North-East did not have good communications with those regions. This would come under inter-regional policy, not just regional policy. In that sphere there is a great rôle for central Government to play.
Some months ago I announced an attempt to do this in my Department


when I was given the unique opportunity of combining three former Government Departments each of which had regional offices. This gave us the opportunity of establishing in each of the regions a much stronger regional office, and appointing top level civil servants as the new heads of such regional offices. We were then able to look at the work which goes on at Whitehall affecting the regions and to decide how much of that could be moved out to the regions.
I believe that, in terms of the future development of regional administration, Whitehall must examine those parts of its decision taking that directly affect the regions and see how much of the work can be moved out to the regions. It may be that Crowther—I do not know; I have not seen copies or drafts of the Report—could come to the conclusion that there is need for greater delegation from the centre to the regions in some other spheres where decision-taking is done by Government Departments.
For example, all the decision taking on planning is done in my Department. I can see no reason why officials giving me advice on planning decisions for Yorkshire should not be sitting in Yorkshire, living among the people of Yorkshire and sending their advice from a desk there rather than a desk in Whitehall. If we take things such as education, looking at details of school building programmes, for instance, and other Government Departments, there must be a whole host of people in Whitehall responsible for decision-taking affecting the regions who would reach better decisions and give better advice to their Ministers if they were living in the regions.
That means that if, as regional policies evolve, it is decided to delegate to some further form of elected regional authority, with a host of bodies already organised administratively in the regions which will come under the direction of such an authority, it will be important to see that it is an authority with enough functions on a regional basis to attract people of high calibre. One of my genuine doubts about the future of setting up the type of body suggested in this Clause is that only after the detailed examination of Crowther can we see exactly what would be the nature of the work they would

do. If we are not careful, in this country, which is a small geographical island, we shall have again a multitude of democratically elected bodies.
As we all know, it is quite difficult to get people of high calibre to go into local government, even with large authorities. We shall have district authorities, new county authorities and obviously the House of Commons itself, and if in future we develop elected regional bodies, that will be another group of people to be elected. Therefore, if they are to be elected to decide what are to be partly strategic matters affecting the regions or to carry out the executive functions in certain major services, we have to see that the total package is of a nature to attract high-calibre people and that they have a worthwhile job to do. That is why basically I want to gain experience in my own Department from the manner in which we are devolving to the regions when we have the detailed examination which Crowther has made.
I also want to remove any uncertainty that this Clause may produce for the existing or new local authorities. The functions which we have given to the new local authorities at district and county level are obviously functions they can carry out. I would not suggest that regional planning authorities should take away from them any of those functions. They have that set of functions which this Government certainly think they are adequately fitted to carry out. Therefore many of the new functions of any new regional organisation would be delegated very largely by the House of Commons itself. Obviously, one of the tasks of Crowther has been to examine, Department by Department and function by function, the degree to which, first, it is possible and, secondly, it would make practical sense to delegate to the regions.
In conclusion, I do not want in any way to prevent and I am in no way against the dialogue that has gone on for some years as to the future structure of regional government. I say sincerely that at this moment I am in no way certain what would be the best structure and what detailed functions it would carry out. I welcome a debate such as this because the ideas and concepts that have emerged can be taken into account when the Crowther Commission reports.
It is for this reason that I am unwilling to suggest any definite form of regional organisation at this stage in our proceedings, while certainly accepting the broad philosophy that the more local people can make and carry out their own local decisions the better. I also accept the plea as regards the burden on Whitehall and the House of Commons, which is of such considerable volume at the present time, that if in some of these spheres we could effectively delegate it must be for the benefit of the country.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. John Silkin: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but the House may consider it appropriate that I should make a short intervention. I agree with the Secretary of State's remarks about our previous debates and with what he said about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) and about one ex-Whip and one Whip. We all agree that they played a very worthy part in our debates.
In a sense today has been rather like a series of Second Reading debates, yet this is the Report stage of the Bill. The House and the country at large would do well to study the debates which took place in Committee, to which the Secretary of State made such kind references. The standard of the Committee debates and what was decided in Committee were of enormous value and of exceptional quality.
I do not regard it as a totally academic exercise that we discuss the regions tonight. The Secretary of State and I have already found our point of difference. He thinks in terms of Crowther, and Crowther virtually alone at this stage. I do not blame the right hon. Gentleman for that; I merely say that that is the situation. Crowther's terms of reference are to decide what can be devolved from central Government to a directly or indirectly elected regional or provincial authority, if that is a good thing to do. The Crowther Commission might decide that it is not a good thing to do, anyway.
The Secretary of State gave us some idea of the sorts of function that might be considered where they conflicted with one another, for example. He showed us that the geographical boundaries of a water authority might conflict with

the functions that one would expect a regional authority otherwise to have.
I know that the Secretary of State was not making an absolute impossibility of it but was saying merely that it was a difficulty. However, I found it rather amusing, because it was quaintly touching that the right hon. Gentleman was boasting that he had amalgamated the co-terminus regional functions of his previous offices.
When I was at the Ministry of Works it struck me as very odd that our regions did not coincide exactly with those of transport and housing. I wondered how that Ministry had gone on all those years operating from totally different regions. I congratulate the Secretary of State on having squared the circle. It means this can be done efficiently at a later stage.
Subsection (7) of the new Clause says who is to do it. In this case it would be the English Commission for the boundaries and the regions that would square the circle and do what the Secretary of State has done for regional offices. So that does not lie very much between us.
I should like to see a regional authority which has those powers not only coming down from on high from central Government but also coming up from local government. The trouble with this—and here I see the right hon. Gentleman's dilemma—is that it may leave very little for some of the lower-tier authorities that he has so carefully built up. It might be that they would lose powers which would go upwards until, perhaps, we had a totally different concept of local government. I see that when we are doing one massive local government reorganisation we do not want another but that is not my dilemma.
I have always believed in local democracy, not local government alone. When there are local government elections and the percentage of the electorate voting is 19 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. we can never be proud of our system of local government. One of the great things about the idea of regional government is the challenge it gives to people to feel that they are deeply involved in something of vital importance to them, which brings the hope that a much greater percentage of the electorate would play their part and above all vote at elections. Sooner or later we have to meet this.

Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that, if anything, the polling in the larger areas, the counties, is normally lower than in the boroughs.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, but that may be due to the remoteness, not necessarily geographical, people feel or felt towards their counties and it may be a criticism of the powers or functions those counties have. If, for example, we were to give regions the power of running hospitals and of doing the planning in the area there would be a much more immediate involvement of the people, who would be willing to make their voices heard much more than now. What we are trying to achieve—it may be an impossible task for our generation—is the perfect system of local government. Let us at least have a try.

Mr. Terry Davis: When I listened to the Secretary of State at first I began to feel that the only difference between us was that on this side we want to move a little more rapidly than the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says he accepts that there is a case for regional government. He says that he has no wish to end the dialogue which has been taking place over the last few years. My feeling is that it is high time for the dialogue to come to an end without waiting for the Crowther Commission.
As I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's other arguments I began to find more differences between us. I found his arguments about the calibre of candidates being a difficulty in future as a result of the multitude of councils rather difficult to follow in the light of this Bill. He was right to say that we shall have the House of Commons, then a regional council—if the Clause is accepted—then the county council, district council and, in the countryside, the parish council, too. That will make five tiers of local government. If that is a problem, surely the answer would have been to accept the proposition put forward in Committee by my hon. Friends for a unitary system of local government. That would have solved that problem even if it would have created others. We should then have had only four tiers of local government.
Another argument concerned the difficulty of determining the area for a

regional council. It was a little unfair of the right hon. Gentleman to contrast the area for water resources and sewage with the area which would be suitable for a police authority on the regional basis. I am sure he would agree that at first sight the most suitable area for a regional police authority would probably be the same area as would be suitable for planning transport, for example. There is a close link between transport patterns and crime patterns. This is an example of a possible function of regional government, and I wish to elaborate on it because it is relevant to the Bill.
One of the things to which I object is the Bill's effect on planning transport. I expressed this concern in Committee, and I repeat it now because I was not satisfied with what the Ministers said in Committee. The Bill will restrict the area for planning passenger transport in the metropolitan areas. It will transfer the powers of the existing passenger transport authorities to the new councils representing the metropolitan counties. In the West Midlands it will mean a serious reduction in the area which will be concerned in planning passenger transport.
My constituency in North Worcestershire is part of the West Midlands passenger transport area. Under the Bill it will not be part of the area involved in the planning of the West Midlands metropolitan county. I do not wish my area to join the West Midlands metropolitan area, but I recognise, as my constituents recognise, that we are involved in the transport problems of the conurbation. Many of my constituents commute to the conurbation to work. We are affected by transport planning in the region.
The present area of the passenger transport authority is too restricted. A strong case can be made for extending instead of restricting the area, as the Government propose. The Secretary of State is right in saying that there is an inter-regional transport problem as well as a transport problem within the region. That is true throughout the country. But one can put that argument forward when talking about the economy, because we have a national economy but we also have regional economic considerations, and both sides of the House have accepted that in first the


establishment and then the continuation of the economic planning councils.
The Secretary of State referred to the regional land use strategy in the South-East. We have recently had a West Midlands regional study. Proposals have been put forward by a group of planning authorities in the West Midlands for planning the physical area of the West Midlands. It suggested the growth points for future new towns. It is an extremely important study, but it is only advisory. It is desirable not that the organisation which made that study should be disbanded but that there should be a continuing organisation with responsibility for implementing the eventual agreement.
There is a case for greater regional consideration of facilities for recreation and leisure. This is a slightly different case. I do not suggest that there should be a transfer of power from the other tiers of local government to regional councils. There is a strong case for concurrent powers. An example about which I feel strongly is libraries. One of the mistakes in the Bill is that library powers are to be transferred to the county councils; there is no possibility of the district councils retaining them. But some libraries should properly be a regional responsibility. There is a case for concurrent powers for library and other recreational functions and for regional councils to carry them out.
One of the greatest differences between myself and the Secretary of State on this issue—and here I think I speak for many of my hon. Friends—is that it is good that there should be consultation by the Government with the people in the regions, but it is not good enough. There is a need in the regions for power to take decisions. The Secretary of State referred to the officials who advise him on planning appeals. He said that he could not see at first sight why they should not sit in, for example, Yorkshire or the West Midlands to consider the planning appeal and then advise him. I go much further. I see no reason why the decision should not be taken in Yorkshire, the West Midlands or wherever it is. There is a case for the devolution of decision-making and not merely the giving of advice.
9.15 p.m.
I hope we shall not have as regional government a branch office concept with a head office in London and branch offices in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle so that the powers of decision-making are closely restricted and curtailed.

Mr. Peter Walker: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully before he pursues the line that the ultimate place for planning appeals should be a regional economic council. If, for example, in Yorkshire the final appeal was to a Yorkshire regional organisation there would be a far lower quality of ultimate planning than there has been in the past.

Mr. Davis: A great deal would depend on the sort of cases and appeals on which a decision was to be taken regionally. There are some planning problems which should rightly be determined at district level, some which should be determined at county level and some which should be determined by the Secretary of State. I am not thinking of decisions about where a third or fourth airport should be sited. I am thinking of an inspector being sent from London to hear a case in a constituency and then reporting to the Secretary of State, who gives a decision. Many such planning appeals could be decided without the Secretary of State being troubled. I am putting this forward not as a hard and fast proposal but as something which should be on the table. I am trying to illustrate my criticism of the branch office idea of delegating to the regions only the preparation and consideration of the facts, and advice being given to the Secretary of State for him to make the decision. I hope that as regional government develops, as I am sure it will, there will be a devolution of decison-making and not merely of consultation.
I am asking not only for greater speed in the creation of regional councils but also that regional councils should have real responsibility. I accept that there is strength in the Government's argument that we should await the report of the Crowther Commission, but the Clause only makes possible the creation of regional councils. It is similar to new Clause 8, which concerned new towns, in the sense that it makes it possible


for something to happen. It does not mean that the Secretary of State must make it happen. I strongly support the Clause.

Mr. Arthur Jones: In my time I have been an ardent advocate of a type of regional authority because I have felt that there were certain powers and functions which it would be useful to have based on a number of regions for England and perhaps one for Wales and one for Scotland. What the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis) says has a degree of logic. What we are looking for is a district council, a county council and a regional council or authority, with the subsequent responsibility lying on this House.
But we must have regard to the point made by the Secretary of State that geographically we are a small country in which minimum standards are sought for the country as a whole. We are not dealing with different climatic conditions or places that are remote in terms of transport. We are lucky in the United Kingdom to have such a compact administrative organisation with such high minimum standards. In that context it is difficult to see any great scope for regional differences.
Here I begin to question the necessity for a regional administration. It is in some ways attractive that there should be one regional authority for the Eastern Counties, one for the East Midlands, one for the North East, and one for the North West, but I hesitate to see any logic in it or any administrative advantage in terms of the short distances and the high minimum standards which successive Governments happily have built up.
We are in some difficulty when we turn to the concept of the type of elected representative who would serve on a regional authority. We face the question whether the representatives should be directly elected. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) was in difficulty in suggesting that there would be an adequate motivation of interest on a regional basis to ensure a good turnout at election time. This is not borne out in regard to county councils and I thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little thin in his reply on that point. The powers and duties of county councils

closely affect the people who reside in the counties, and I have in mind education as an outstanding service in that respect. The difficulty of varying catchment areas is a factor in all administrative services, as was highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in terms of water resources.
The right hon. Member for Deptford said that hospitals would be an adequate motivation at election time. Are we to see regional areas drawn on the basis of the regional hospital service? I am not qualified to judge whether that would be adequate or right in one area or another, but I am doubtful. The regional economic planning councils serve a useful function in an advisory capacity but are powerless in executive terms. I am suspicious that they duplicate much of the work done by central Government Departments and by local authorities. This is borne out by the fact that they are staffed by departmental civil servants and much of the information upon which they rely for their advice to central Government is drawn from local government sources.
I am disappointed that the regional economic planning councils have not been given some powers and a more effective rôle. Many of us had high hopes for those councils but those hopes have not been realised. When I meet the chairmen and members of those councils I am left with a feeling of lack of purpose and authority, and indeed a lack of executive power, and this is something which the members of the councils very much regret. We face a situation in which we need to bring our judgment to bear on whether there can be a proper place for regional economic planning councils. If that cannot be justified, it must put in doubt the question of regional administration.
As for town and country planning, we have not had any great assistance from the regional economic planning councils. The county councils are the planning authorities. In their own right, they can accept or reject any advice or observations given by the regional authorities. In today's circumstances, I think that it is pertinent to know the extent to which the Minister may find it useful to use the regional councils for the problems that he faces in requiring the release of land for residential development. I


have not heard it advocated from any source that we have a regional concept of town and country planning in the regional authorities and councils and that it is to them that the plea should be made for the release of land. Here again is a demonstration of their powerlessness in bringing any effective contribution to this problem.
Although it has formed no part of these debates, we should be concerned with the financial basis of the regional authorities. Will it be on the simple precept of the rating authority? In other words, shall we find the regional authorities precepting upon the district councils? That seems to be a rather far-fetched arrangement. Where are we to look for resources for the regional authorities? There is great difficulty in suggesting alternative sources for local authority revenues. It will be equally if not more difficult to find a sound basis for regional taxation.
If there are to be substantial expenditure and budgetary matters involved in regional government, they will demand directly elected councils and will be likely to rule out the indirect election proposals which form the basis of most informed opinion in this respect.
I take as pertinent the point made by my right hon. Friend about the inescapably conflicting interests of the varying levels of decision-taking and administrative organisation. We all know the problems at present with the two-tier system of administration in local government. The Government are seeking ways and means of avoiding that in their reorganisation by giving definitive powers to the two levels of local government. But if we are to put in a third level, there will be an increasing area of potential disagreement, competition and lack of co-ordinated effort. I know that the Government take refuge in Clause 101, the agency Clause. I believe that they will have substantially added difficulties in making regional administrative arrangements. I believe that it is wise to await the Report of the Crowther Commission.
9.30 p.m.
I have been substantially committed to the concept of regional government, but I am less sure about it than I was. Local government reorganisation has

added further doubts in my mind, particularly when I see the problems that there are in other countries in which there is a further stage of responsibility between local and central government. These are, in the main, countries of large geographical extent with State governments and they seem to have added problems of federal administration in dealing with the state and local government.
Some of the advocacy we hear is based on overseas experience, but it makes the objective of regional government much less attractive for us for some of the reasons I have mentioned. I am bound, therefore, at this stage to resist the new Clause, though I have an open mind on the subject. I shall be able to reach a conclusion only when I see what the Crowther Commission has to recommend.

Mr. James Lamond: The compliments which the Secretary of State paid to the Committee seemed indirectly to be compliments to local government, for it was because the Committee realised the importance of local government that it examined the Bill with such care and attention.
We felt that it was essential to provide local government with the structure and tools to enable it to carry out what we consider to be this important task in the community. The Clause is an attempt to improve that machinery.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is it not extraordinary that in Committee hon. Gentlemen opposite argued strongly for unitary, one-tier, authorities, while now they are arguing for three-tier ones?

Mr. Lamond: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of making that point when he makes his own speech.
When trying to rebut the arguments adduced in favour of a regional authority, the Secretary of State put forward one argument which carried force and which has been accepted by some of my hon. Friends as being somewhat valid. His argument was that he was awaiting the Crowther Report. However, the Clause does not require a regional authority to be set up immediately. It simply provides the structure for establishing it.
I remind the House that we have been pulling local government to pieces in England and Wales not just while the


Committee has been discussing the Bill. We have been making things more difficult for people interested in local government for some years, and if we are to embark after the Crowther Report on a further reorganisation of local government we shall set it back still further. We should, therefore, make provision at this stage for regional government.
It was unfair of the Secretary of State to suggest that because of certain functions which local government might carry out—for example, water, police and hospitals—it would be impossible to draw regional boundaries. How anyone charged with the task of trying to draw county council or metropolitan area boundaries could be daunted by the task of drawing regional boundaries I do not know because nothing could have been more difficult than the task already tackled in the Bill. It would be quite easy to draw regional boundaries.
Some hon. Members opposite have suggested that this country is too small to warrant the recognition of regional areas. But we already recognise regional areas. We all discuss the unemployment in the regions we represent. In my case, for example, the North-West Region is a quite clearly defined region. Although the climatic and geographic differences throughout the country are not very great compared with other much larger countries, there are still very great economic differences between the regions. No one can say that the problems of the North-West Region, for example, are exactly the same as those of South-East England or the Scottish Region—in the absence of hon. Members for Scottish constituencies I venture to call it a region. For example, it is interesting that planning appeals for the Scottish Region are dealt with by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It seems possible that decisions can be arrived at regionally without causing any undue harm to the system.
The Secretary of State was scraping the bottom of the barrel in finding an excuse to rebut the arguments for regional government when he said that there would be difficulty in getting candidates to stand for election and that election might not be the best method because he has had very valuable service from businessmen and trade unionists—he mentioned two—who have given advice but

have not got the time to stand for election. I would be the last to deny that very valuable service has been rendered by such people, but I refuse to recognise that the method of appointment to boards is better than democratic election. I have the uneasy feeling that many such people who consider that they do not have the time to stand for election are simply not inclined to subject themselves to the examination of the electors or are not prepared to explain to them the reasons for decisions they have arrived at. I should not like to use the rather unfortunate phrase used during the debate about aldermen and the necessity of having a reminder by the electorate now and again of their duties. But it is a good thing to have at the back of one's mind the fact that one is elected to a position and that one can be removed from it if what one does is not to the satisfaction of those whom one is trying to serve.
I wonder whether in the Bill as it stands we have not restricted the numbers of people who could present themselves for election, because many thousands of people are prevented from standing for the local council by the fact of being employed by local authorities, for example, or by some body indirectly paid for by a local authority. We attempted to do something about that in Committee, but unavailingly. However, it does not help the search for suitable good candidates.
The suggestion that the electorate might not be interested in electing people to regional councils because of the remoteness from their place of residence or employment does not seem to be a good argument. In an intervention during my right hon. Friend's speech, the Secretary of State said that he thought that remoteness was the reason why local councils, for instance, do not get very large percentage turnouts on election day. But are not we herein Parliament more remote geographically from our electors than any other elected body? In spite of that, the number voting at a General Election is the highest percentage of any election in the country; certainly higher than that for local authorities.

Mr. Michael Fidler: Perhaps the hon. Member would remember what electors vote for in parliamentary elections. Their enthusiasm in the parliamentary contest lies in the


power which resides in Parliament to which the person for whom they are voting may be elected. This compares to the powers held in the remote regional organisation which the hon. Member is now canvassing.

Mr. Lamond: The hon. Member has made the very point I was about to raise. I believe that low polls stem not from remoteness but from the belief of the electors that the people they are voting for do not have much power. It is important therefore in a regional council to ensure that the people who are to serve on that council have real power.

Mr. Arthur Jones: If the hon. Member wishes to give regional government greater powers, from whom are the powers to be taken?

Mr. Lamond: I think the Secretary of State made the point in his speech that he would expect regional councils to derive some of their functions from this House, and I believe they could derive some from the lower tier elected councils. I would look forward to having some of our powers taken from us so that the business of the House might be less congested and there might be greater opportunity for a more thorough discussion on some of the matters we have to decide. It is my theory that there are too many Members of Parliament; everyone agrees with me, I think, until the time comes to decide which seats should disappear, when support for me disappears also.
There is room for improvement, and I believe the regional councils will come. Many regional bodies have grown of their own accord, without much Government assistance or encouragement, like the North-West Industrial Development Association in the Manchester area. This is because the people know there is a need for this sort of development and they have set up the bodies for themselves. We should recognise that fact by accepting new Clause 10.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on not jumping the gun on the Crowther Report on the regions. Far from wanting, for example, libraries to go to the regions, albeit with concurrent powers of the counties as suggested tentatively by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Terry Davis), I am

anxious to see libraries left with the districts.

Mr. Terry Davis: I said specifically that I had a great deal of sympathy with libraries being held by district councils. I said there was a strong case for some libraries—by which I mean central reference libraries—being run at regional level.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I feel very strongly that libraries are intensely local in many of their functions, and I am most anxious that the Secretary of State should reconsider this particular matter. Still less do I want to see regional police forces. We have already had a series of amalgamations and mergers of police forces from 1966 onwards, and they have just settled down and gelled very nicely. It would be a great error to upset them.
With respect to other possibly more famous forces, the Lancashire force has demonstrated very clearly, not only to this country but to the whole world over the last few months, that it has a quite exceptionally high degree of skill and determination in apprehending criminals outside its county boundaries. My right hon. Friend said that the area required for water authorities was not necessarily the same as that for the police. I submit very strongly that the county boundaries are not ideal for police functions, and I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter very carefully.

9.45 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I have listened with great interest to what has been said by hon. Members on both sides. I am reserving judgment, because I am intensely interested in regional development, but I want to be sure that what is done is the most satisfactory way of coping with the problems. Therefore, I am in no position tonight to say what my final decision will be. I have great confidence in my Government and I think that they could make the regional councils work if they wanted to do so.
Quite a lot has been said about the economic development councils. We have an excellent Chairman of our Northern Regional Economic Planning Council, Dr. Reid. I have heard him on several occasions make very good suggestions. He is full of ideas which sound brilliant to me, as a novice. As always when I hear anything which I


think is to the advantage of the region, I have taken a great deal of trouble to go to my various Secretaries of State and ask what will be done about Dr. Reid's proposals. Part of the problem is the fragmentation of regional matters between one Department and another.
For example, Dr. Reid had a talk with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Naturally, he is not at liberty to say what has happened as a result. But I have not heard, either, and unless I know the facts I find it very difficult to make up my mind as to what is right and what is wrong with regard to regional councils. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whom I naturally wish to support, would say a little more to inform me and my colleagues on both sides, I should feel better, but I do not know what happened.
I went to see my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Employment after I had heard some very good suggestions from Dr. Reid. My right hon. Friend could not have been more helpful. He gave me a great deal of time, and I was delighted with what he said. But he rightly said that many of the points made by Dr. Reid affected a variety of Departments and that all he could do was to put the various proposals, concerning training of apprentices and all sorts of matters which are important in the regions, to each Department concerned. He did that. I have not heard a word since from any of the Departments concerned about whether they will accept or reject the proposals.
If the Secretary of State is to turn down this new Clause, I want to know how we are to get the situation fixed so that one does not have to go from one Department to another to find what has happened. All Governments are far too slow. With the best will in the world, I rather suspect that sometimes very good proposals go to the bottom of the Cabinet's agenda, if they ever get there, or to the bottom of the agenda put before a Secretary of State. I have an open mind on this question. I am delighted to accept what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says, but I want to have more facts when as a Member of Parliament I have to make up my mind as to what

is best for the region and the part of the country which I try very hard to serve.
I have struggled with the question of the police force for a very long time. At last I have managed to get an appointment with the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom I am to meet on Monday. I have a very shrewd suspicion that he does not understand the problem and that I shall not be able to change his mind. There has been one reorganisation and another has been suggested. I am always grateful for the opportunity to line up everything when I make a proposition. Now I shall say what I have lined up against the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This does not make the slightest difference to him, except that he will be terribly nice and will be delighted to see me.
The Chief Constable of the County of Northumberland says that the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State are not practicable. I should prefer to take the opinion of an operating chief constable than that of a Secretary of State who may have had a lot of advice from people from whom I should not like to accept advice. The Minister for Local Government and Development told me that he could not care less about the arrangements for the police on the question of boundaries. I decided to get in touch with a very distinguished Lord Lieutenant in the County of Northumberland and I asked him whether he would do something about the police force. He very kindly put his ideas to the police committee for the county. That committee does not agree with the Home Secretary. It says that unless it can shift the view of the Home Secretary little can be done. The committee thinks that he has got himself so embedded that it will not be able to shift his view. The Police Federation has a view which should be accepted because that is the operating point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who used to be a Minister in the Home Office, has heard the case put for Lancashire and my region. He said that he would not express a view, but he told the Police Federation that if ever it wanted another deputation to go to the Secretary of State he would be delighted to accompany it. I gather that my right hon. Friend


is on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and myself.
I get fed up with Ministers. One puts up masses of information and they are so nice in refusing that one feels one is being an absolute brute. When I see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Monday, I shall ask him what his qualifications are—he is very good as Home Secretary, although I do not always agree with him—to go against all these opinions of experienced people.
I want to say something which will please some hon. Members opposite but infuriate others. I am a very good digger and I find that when the Police Federation saw the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins)—who was deputy Leader of the Opposition but has now resigned—when he was Home Secretary, he promised that he would not make any alterations in the police boundaries until we had the Local Government Bill. As all politicians are a bit uncertain of what they do, whatever they say in the House of Commons or in the country, the right hon. Gentleman did not take any notice of what he had told the Police Federation. He immediately made an alteration, had a new reorganisation, and now we are landed with a reorganisation which the police were told they would never have to face until the Local Government Bill.
I do not quite know what I am going to do. If I do not get sense out of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary I shall, I suppose, have to have a demonstration here, perhaps with the police force. I shall just see what I am going to do. But this kind of thing makes me wonder whether, if we had strong regional councils, we would not be able to knock a little more sense into Ministers. I am sorry to put it so strongly but it is no good being namby-pamby in politics. I believe in being outspoken.
It is terribly important when discussing regional councils to know whether backbenchers are to be informed enough so that they can use whatever brains God has given them, because one cannot make decisions unless one knows all the facts. I always try to know my facts. I would not take a decision from anyone unless I thought I knew the facts. One never knows as a backbencher whether one has all the facts.
I have said enough. I am longing to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but then he is only one Secretary of State. There is a whole row of them, and I just do not know how I shall make up my mind on what is the right line for me to take. I hope that I shall know after I have seen my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Monday. It depends on him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment had better use his charm on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary because then I might much more readily accept the excellent analysis he gave of the problems of the regions.

Mr. Blenkinsop: From what the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, I understand that there is one area in this Bill on which there is fairly general disagreement. It may have been better had the hon. Member heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes) when he moved the new Clause.
This has been a debate in rather low key. While we welcome the intervention of the Secretary of State, the House would be mistaken if it thought that this was in any way an unimportant issue. I am convinced that regional organisation will be—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Rossi.]

Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Blenkinsop: The issue of regionalism and what kind of authority may be needed at regional level is of supreme importance. It became clear as we proceeded in Committee that, although at the start many Members were uncertain about what rôle there was for the regions, hardly any major issues raised by the Bill could be settled other than at regional or, indeed, national level. We were continually saying, "Here is another example of the need for structure at regional level." We are raising this issue again on Report to try to secure from the Government a clearer definition of their intentions and to make clear that


we believed that there was an essential rôle at regional level.
It is a tragedy that we have all the problems of this major reconstruction of local government to relatively little purpose. Many of the problems which the Bill sets out to solve will still be there when it is passed, and the new machinery will go no real way to meet those needs. That is why we are putting forward proposals for some regional setting.
I direct the attention of the House to new Clause 3 which is being discussed with new Clause 10. That allows for a much quieter, slower approach to the problem and takes in many of the points to which reference has been made. It merely gives power to the Commission to consider the establishment of regions in specific areas without requiring, as it is required under new Clause 10, that they be established throughout the whole country.
There are areas of the country where the needs for regional structure are more urgent than in others. I completely accept that the broad concept of a regional structure is required throughout the country. Nevertheless, it is possible to consider an approach in stages, looking at the needs of certain areas in advance of others. That is what is suggested in this very modest proposal in new Clause 3.
I understand that for technical reasons it may not be possible to express our views by voting on new Clause 3. It may be that we shall have to take our decision whether we wish to vote on new Clause 10. However, I hope that the Minister will give some attention to the approach which we are also suggesting in new Clause 3.
It is interesting that in Committee hon. Members began to recognise the need for some kind of regional structure. The Minister made it quite clear that they recognise that certain matters ought to be looked at on a regional basis and are waiting to see the best way to deal with this. It is all very well to wait, but I believe that we should begin to take some action or at least suggest the ways in which this whole subject might be dealt with. Our anxiety is not merely that we are not setting up immediately a full structure at regional level but that the

whole setting of this Bill may preclude the development of a regional structure even at a later date. This, I think, is the anxiety we all feel, and it is shared to a large extent by those who are to have the responsibility of putting the Bill into operation once it has been passed by this House.
Whatever attitudes may be taken here, there is no question at all that very many of those who are professionally involved in this whole area, and particularly in planning, are requiring more and more solutions at the regional level. Therefore we want some clear assurance from the Minister when he replies. If he is not prepared to accept the Amendments as they stand, he can at least make clear the way in which the form of regional approach can be established. If these Amendments are rejected, I fear very much indeed that it may not be practicable.
May I take one or two of the points that have been raised and deal with them very shortly? It has been suggested by some hon. Members that what we are proposing here is a three-tier structure. This is not so. Hon. Members may take different views about this, but what we are suggesting very modestly is that the councils should be absorbed, amalgamated, to form new regions. It is clear from both the Amendments that are put down here that this is the concept that is suggested. There may be objections to this approach but no one can say that this is a three-tier structure. It means, in fact, a more effective two-tier structure, in our view. What we envisage is both that there should be powers in the hands of that new regional body that stem from local government and that they should take over powers that are exercised today by very many ad hoc statutory bodies that have been established over the years, and particularly since the war. All Governments have shared in doing this, of course.
We certainly believe that the area of health planning ought to come within the scope of these new regional bodies. That is one very important example. We are very unhappy about the way in which new ad hoc machinery is proposed in health matters. We do not know the details of this yet and it seems illogical that we are passing this Measure with regard to local government without having


that information. It is a very unsatisfactory position. But they would absorb that kind of function at that kind of level.
I noticed that the Secretary of State, in his intervention, again repeated that he regarded it as almost self-evident that water authorities could not be established for areas that we might choose for other regional government purposes. I doubt whether that is true, although he repeats it on every occasion. There have been many examples of how closely the structure suggested for the new regional authorities links with the areas we might very well wish to choose for our regional authorities for other purposes. Articles have appeared in the national Press and in some professional journals showing how close the link is. Therefore, without further evidence, we cannot accept the Secretary of State's statement about that.
It has also been said that it might be necessary to have some nominated element. The Secretary of State referred to the value of some of those serving in an advisory capacity on regional economic advisory councils. As the regional bodies that we foresee would have real powers, unlike the advisory councils, we think that they must be largely, if not wholly, elected bodies. I do not rule out the possibility of a small nominated element. I accept that there are valuable sources of advice which we might not be able to utilise simply by direct election. However, without question the body which we foresee must be either fully elected or have a clearly elected majority.
In many areas under the structure proposed by the Bill, even if it is amended, there will be authorities which will not be able to carry out the functions expected of them. We are told that there will be joint bodies of some sort or another. The White Paper said that it was the Government's intention to combine rural areas and urban areas. In many areas we are persisting in establishing purely urban authorities. Elsewhere we are persisting in establishing purely rural authorities. The conflict will continue, to no one's satisfaction. The attempt is being made to work out a structure to make work what is unworkable. In all cases a regional solution is needed.
For these reasons, I deeply regret that we have had no clear undertaking that this proposition will be accepted. Instead,

it is clear that the Government intend to go much further with elaborating their governmental and departmental regional machinery. That is their answer to our demand for an effective, democratic, elected body at regional level.
If the Bill goes through unamended, over the next few years more and more nominated bodies will be established in almost every area. We believe that the process has already gone too far and that some areas should be clawed back into democratically elected control. This is why we regard this issue as one of such great importance. We believe that as time passes this will come to be increasingly recognised in the country at large. It is why, unless we get a more satisfactory answer than we have received so far, we intend to divide the House on the Clause.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not propose to give any such undertaking as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has asked for. I will give the undertaking that when we receive Crowther we will consider it and then take steps to provide proper arrangements for regional Government. We have a regional organisation, with many Government officers carrying on their work in the regions. We fully accept the need for regional organisations of various kinds and the regional treatment of issues, to which the hon. Gentleman seemed to object. The Secretary of State has already defined some of those areas, such as water, transport, planning and so on. We shall continue to treat these matters regionally and await the Crowther Report. It would be foolish not to do so.
We fully accept the need for regional organisations of various kinds and, when we have the Crowther Report, will decide what form they will take. They certainly will not take the form of new Clause 10—a very vague statement. I presume that the House will be asked to divide on the proposition that this Clause should be included in the Bill.
We are also discussing new Clause 3, which the hon. Member said was terrifyingly modest. It takes away all the counties' powers and is a complete attack on local government. It says:
A region established under section 49 of this Act shall have all the powers of the


counties from which it was amalgamated and such powers as the Secretary of State may by order determine subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
This is not the sort of regional government which we or Crowther have in mind. This is taking local government functions away and vesting them in some top-tier body, above other levels of local government, with the regions at the top, then the counties, districts and, I suppose, the parishes at the bottom. Take for example, subsection (1) of the Clause. How many regions are we to have? Redcliffe-Maud has suggested eight regions; Derek Senior suggested 35. At the moment we have eight regions, and in those regions we have the regional economic planning councils and the regional standing conferences of the local authorities, both of which have sponsored regional strategies. Economic planning councils are extremely useful by way of advice to Government, and we are extremely grateful for the assistance they give. To some extent they have an executive power with the standing conferences of local planning authorities in sponsoring regional strategies. Their great benefit to the Government is through the advice that they give.
Subsection (2) of new Clause 10 talks of an amalgamation of counties. We understand what is behind that only when we look at new Clause 3, an official Opposition Clause, and see that what is meant by the amalgamation of the counties is the amalgamation of the county councils and all the powers of the local authorities at that level. This Clause is a complete phantasy.
Thank Heaven we are not also discussing the Liberal Amendment grouped with this. We have sat here from the early part of the afternoon until now and have had the benefit of the attendance of but one Liberal Member for exactly three minutes. We have been discussing a Liberal Amendment for the last two hours. It is rather extraordinary.

I turn to subsection (3) which says:
For every region there shall be a council consisting of a chairman and councillors and the council shall have all the functions as shall be vested in them by this Act or otherwise.

Plainly the Opposition intend that those functions should be the functions we have given in the Bill to the counties. The functions are to be vested in this regional body.

It has been asked from where the revenue would come. Is the region to precept on the counties and then the counties to precept on the districts and to collect the money from extra rates? The Clause leaves this question unanswered. We do not know the intention behind it. What are the terms of reference of this regional body? What are to be the electoral divisions? How many members are to be on the regional body? This is all very well for an ordinary debate on having regional authority, but to ask the House to embody this sort of proposal—

Mr. John Silkin: When the Minister reads the whole Clause he will see from the last subsection that the matter would be decided between now and 1977—a long enough period even for the present Government, and the Labour Government which will take over, to make up their minds.

Mr. Page: Do the Opposition seriously put the Clause before the House and ask it to divide on it if it is not to know what the Clause will contain until 1977? The proposed council would be a big brother for our proposed counties and districts. It is a threat to the local government reorganisation which we have embodied in the Bill, and I hope that if it is asked to divide on it, the House will reject it.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time: —

The House divided: Ayes 110, Noes 138.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[10.20 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Dalyell, Tam


Atkinson, Norman
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Davidson, Arthur


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)


Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley
Dormand, J. D.


Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.
Driberg, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Cronin, John
Edelman, Maurice




Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roper, John


Foley, Maurice
McCann, John
Rose, Paul B.


Forrester, John
McCartney, Hugh
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mackie, John
Sillars, James


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Maclennan, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Small, William


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Marquand, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Stallard, A. W.


Hamling, William
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Harrison, Walter (Wakefileld)
Millan, Bruce
Strang, Gavin


Horam, John
Milne, Edward
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Huckfield, Leslie
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)


Hunter, Adam
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Torney, Dr. Anthony


Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wainwright, Edwin


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Oakes, Gordon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Oswald, Thomas
Wallace, George


Kaufman, Gerald
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Watkins, David


Lamond, James
Paget, R. T.
Weitzman, David


Lawson, George
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Pendry, Tom



Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Lipton, Marcus
Price, William (Rugby)
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. John Golding.


Lomas, Kenneth
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Onslow, Cranley


Atkins, Humphrey
Havers, Michael
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hayhoe, Barney
Pink, R. Bonner


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Biffen, John
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Biggs-Davison, John
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Holt, Miss Mary
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Boscawen, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bowden, Andrew
Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hunt, John
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rost, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
James, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Carlisle, Mark
Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cooke, Robert
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Soref, Harold


Coombs, Derek
Kinsey, J. R.
Speed, Keith


Cormack, Patrick
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Critchley, Julian
Lane, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. James
Le Merchant, Spencer
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dean, Paul
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Tebbit, Norman


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Luce, R. N.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dixon, Piers
McCrindle, R. A.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Trew, Peter


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Farr, John
Maude, Angus
Waddington, David


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fidler, Michael
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Fookes, Miss Janet
Moate, Roger
Warren, Kenneth


Fortescue, Tim
Money, Ernle
Weatherill, Bernard


Foster, Sir John
Monks, Mrs. Connie
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fowler, Norman
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, Jerry


Fox, Marcus
More, Jasper
Winterton, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.



Green, Alan
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Grylls, Michael
Neave, Airey
Mr. Michael Joplin and Mr. Hamish Gray.


Gummer, Selwyn
Normanton, Tom



Gurden, Harold

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—(Mr. Graham Page.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend certain enactments relating to development plans, to extend the duration of, and otherwise amend, certain enactments relating to the control of office development, to make further provision for controlling the demolition of buildings in conservation areas, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise—

(1)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State for the purpose of making grants and loans in connection with the preservation or enhancement of conservation areas, and paying remuneration and allowances to persons rendering services in connection with

any question arising as to the making thereof; and

(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of interest on, or repayment of, any such loan.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

PRIVILEGES

Ordered,

That Mr. Secretary Whitelaw be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and that Mr. Robert Carr and Sir Harry Legge-Bourke be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Ordered,

That Mr. David Lane be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and that Mr. Jasper More be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]

TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE)

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: This week the fight for economic justice for the developing world will come to a head in Santiago, Chile. For five weeks starting today representatives of Africa, Asia and Latin America will be locked in confrontation with representatives of the industrialised world at the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. There will be some 2,000 delegates there from more than 130 countries. It is a sad reflection on our parliamentary system that in the midst of our insular pre-occupations no time has been found to debate what British policy should be at this conference, which is so vital for humanity. Once more, just as happened with Ireland in the past, we are in danger of failing to take seriously a major problem of the future until it overtakes us.
Already in the developing world outside China there is an overall unemployment rate of some 30 per cent. During the next 10 years the population of working age in those same countries will increase by a further 25 per cent., or 225 million. This increase cannot be prevented. The people are already born. It represents a gigantic potential social and political explosion which could literally engulf us all. Few countries are more dependent upon their economic, political and social links with the rest of the world than Britain. It is, therefore, as foolish and dangerous as it is immoral for the House to ignore the major challenge.
Despite the efforts of economically advanced nations to push the world monetary crisis well down the agenda at Santiago, there is little doubt that the spokesmen for the so-called third world see it as fundamental to their struggle for progress, and that, therefore, they will wish to ensure that it receives priority attention. Support for their cause has

been forthcoming from Manuel Perez Guerrero, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. In his report to the conference, referring to the crisis he stresses that for the developing countries the most pressing need in the reform of the international monetary system is
how to provide for an adaptation of that system that would make it more responsive than it has been hitherto to the problem of development.
Guerrero emphasises the magnitude of the task. He says:
It is a crisis not only of individual countries or groups of countries, but of the system itself. It demonstrates that the arrangements drawn up at Bretton Woods a quarter of a century go no longer provide a fully adequate framework for the further expansion of the world economy. Nor is the crisis confined to the international monetary system alone; it encompasses the entire range of international trade and finance as well as world output and employment.
Those are the thoughts of the Secretary-General as the conference assembles.
In recent months there has been a series of meetings at places like Lima, Addis Ababa and Bangkok where representatives of the third world have assembled to prepare their case for the Santiago Conference. When one examines what has gone on at these preparatory assemblies it is clear there will be a demand that so much of the initiative in organisation of the world monetary system with its far-reaching consequences for the less developed countries can no longer be left to the Elitist Group of Ten alone. There is no doubt that for the developing world this management of the world economy by the Group of Ten smacks of economic imperialism. A direct presence for the majority of mankind at these deliberations in future will almost certainly be sought.
In support of this proposal, which I suggest deserves our support, it will be argued that the degree to which the world trading and monetary system is weighted against poorer countries is illustrated by the disastrous decline in the producing power of their export earnings. In 1950 their exports were 30 per cent. of world trade. By 1970 they were only 19 per cent. Where it took one ton of cocoa exported by Ghana in 1960 to buy a tractor, today it would take five tons. More recently the depreciation


of the dollar may have added some 950 million dollars losses to the producing power of dollar reserves held by almost 100 developing countries.
It is not only on this front that the real commitment of the industrial countries to development will be tested at Santiago. Ninety-five developing countries have collectively prepared a further list of priorities. These include the international taxation of multinational companies, with the revenue devoted to development; the immediate implementation of aid targets, involving 1 per cent. of gross national product from industrialised countries, with 70 per cent. of that 1 per cent. passing through official governmental and intergovernmental channels; more commodity agreements similar to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement; greater emphasis on multinational rather than bilateral trade; and loans on softer terms. In that latter connection it is no exaggeration to say that soon the developing world as a whole may be paying back more to the rich world than it receives in aid.
The developing world also demands the untying of aid, the linking of the special drawing rights system to development finance, increased regional co-operation between developing countries, preferential shipping rates, reversal of the trend to intercontinental trading blocs and the dismantling of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community.
If we are serious about development, all these demands should receive our attention and support. Yet there has not been a detailed statement to the House on the position of Her Majesty's Government, let alone any opportunity to debate the matter in detail.
Now the conference has begun, and for Britain and her potential partners in an extended E.E.C. the uncompromising request for the end of the common agricultural policy will come at a sensitive time. It inevitably undermines the high moral claims of those who like to argue that membership of the Community will strengthen the base from which to make a worthwhile contribution to solving the economic and social problems of the wider world, for nobody will deny that one non-negotiable cornerstone of the

Community has been its common agricultural policy.
On the same score, those who care for the future of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and question its chances of long-term survival within the E.E.C. will be tempted to smile wryly at the call for more commodity agreements. The pressure for speedy fulfillment of aid targets also comes at an intriguing time for countries like Britain. At this very moment the British Government are pushing through Committee their Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill, which is designed to strengthen the rôle of private investment in Britain's approach to the developing world, and Ministers are at pains to explain that they do not accept the 70 per cent. official aid target urged first by the Pearson Commission and subsequently by the developing countries in their preparatory deliberations for the present session of U.N.C.T.A.D. As we are now the only major industrialised country which rejects this part of the aid target, it is incumbent on the Government to spell out in more detail why they take this view.
Santiago will provide one of those all too rare moments of truth in international politics. The inescapable logic of a policy genuinely designed to secure the emancipation of the developing world will be pitted against the stark reality of economic power politics as they really operate. The bluff and hypocrisy of the industrialised West and Communist world will be called.
The tragedy is that if the history of the first and second United Nations Conferences on Trade and Development is repeated when confronted with the unyielding selfishness of the wealthy world, the unity of the third world, which is essential for effective long-term progress, will rapidly fragment.
Faced with the dire struggle literally for life or death, one developing country after another may begin to compete with its allies in a scramble for short-term—and, therefore, probably counter-productive—self-interest. There is no shortage of cynical opportunism in the industrialised world waiting to exploit just such a development.
It is perhaps appropriate to recall that the present Prime Minister, in a former capacity, at the first U.N.C.T.A.D.


established a very positive reputation. It is, therefore, all the more profoundly disappointing that there has as yet been absolutely no evidence that the Government have taken on board the real significance of the third session of U.N.C.T.A.D. for the developing world and, in the long run, for the industrialised world, of which we are a part.

10.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for the opportunity which he has given us to discuss this important occasion. I have sat with him in the Committee to which he referred and I know that he takes a very great interest in this matter. We look at what he says with very careful scrutiny. Certainly he may rest assured that the Government regard the problem to which he has drawn attention tonight as one of the great challenges of the world today.
In explaining that he could not provide time for a debate before Easter, my right hon. Friend the former Leader of the House said that he regretted all the more because it would be good for the House, for the country and, perhaps, for the world to know how much the Government and the country are doing in such matters. Tonight we are able to repair this omission thanks to the success of the hon. Gentleman in securing the debate. It is indeed an appropriate time, because in a few hours the conference will begin its work in Santiago.
I have listened with interest to the views of the hon. Member on the policies that he would like us to adopt. If I may say so, one must have respect for his views on this matter. But he would not expect me to agree with every single stricture that he has made. I cannot but feel some concern at the pessimistic light in which all developments seem to be seen. If world trade expands—even though the trade of the developing countries has grown, too—we are told that it has done so at a reduced rate. The implication is that it is to the disadvantage of the developing countries that France and Germany, or the United Kingdom and the United States, are exchanging more manufactured goods than before. But the U.N.C.T.A.D. Secretariat has pointed out that the faster

growth in the developed world has been a major cause of the success that the developing countries have had in accelerating their rate of growth in the past decade. Similarly, the developed countries were criticised for exporting inflation, but recent attempts to damp down demand in certain countries to lessen the inflationary processes have led to complaints of their effect on developing countries.
Again, the Lima Declaration suggests that the gap in income per head between developed and developing countries has widened. But how can it be otherwise when the number of heads increases so much faster in most developing countries than in the developed world? We can help solve major health hazards, but the developing countries themselves must help solve population problems.
I mention these points only in order to bring out that complex matters are involved, and to find ways forward we must look at the good side as well as the bad. The record of recent years has many welcome features in it. The average growth target for developing countries was, for example, more than achieved.
I turn now to some of the major issues which will be before the conference, and I shall say something about our policies.
First, international monetary issues have an important bearing on the problem of trade and development and should rightly be discussed at Santiago, even though the body within which decisions will have to be taken will be the International Monetary Fund. The Fund is now considering the question of international monetary reform. The Government recognise that the developing countries must know that their views on reform are being heard, and some way must be found to fill the gap between the ordinary meetings of the I.M.F. board and the full meeting of the governors. We hope that some machinery will be found for a group to meet at ministerial level which will provide adequate representation for developing countries. It will not be easy to get a body at once sufficiently representative and compact for this purpose, but we shall work to find a way.
The proposal that special drawing rights should be linked with development finance is of great interest to many


developing nations. The Government believe that, within the context of international monetary reform, this subject should be studied, and they have supported such a study by the I.M.F. But, while this study is being made, our view is that more traditional efforts of sustaining both multilateral and bilateral aid flows must be continued and improved.
Next I should like to say something about aid. Britain has accepted the target of total net financial flows to developing countries of 1 per cent. of gross national product, and we have undertaken to do our best to reach it by 1975. I am glad to say that we did, in fact, reach this target in 1969 and 1970.
But we have been unable to accept the subsidiary target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product for official aid flows. This is not because we undervalue official aid. Indeed, we consider official aid to be of great importance because of its continuity, its concessionary terms and its availability for purposes for which private capital is not readily forthcoming. But we believe that a subsidiary target is inappropriate. In a country such as Britain in which private investment plays a major rôle in the economy it is natural to expect that a substantial part of the financial flows will be in the form of private investment.
Our own record in providing official aid is, however, a striking one, and we have announced our intention to increase this programme. Over the five financial years 1971–76 an annual increase in constant price terms averaging 7·6per cent. Per annum is planned. This proposed increase exceeds that of Government expenditure in almost every domestic sector of the economy.
We shall also continue to encourage the acceptance of the need for soft terms in aid loans which are appropriate to the circumstances of the individual recipient.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West touched upon the problems of indebtedness of developing countries, and I do not have time to deal with it. But I can assure him that we are seriously concerned over this.
I should also like in the short time available to mention the problems of the

least developed. We have been giving practical effect to our sympathy for the plight of these countries by directing over 13 per cent. of our bilateral aid to countries on the hard core list. But their problems are diverse and complex, and any general measures to assist them will need to be applied flexibly. But this is not to say that we do not believe that general measures can be found, and we shall join with others at the conference in the search for some common and effective policies to help them.
We have always pursued liberal policies towards primary products, recognising their importance to developing countries, over three-quarters of whose export earnings are still dependent on them. We have joined all the existing commodity agreements, and we are active participants in the many other less formal bodies which exist to deal with the problems of individual commodities. We favour international agreement for tea and cocoa and have recently taken the lead in negotiations in Geneva on cocoa in trying to find solutions to outstanding difficulties. We shall pursue this vigorously.
I should also like to refer to the question of the E.E.C. and Britain's entry. The Community has already shown itself outward looking and has the interests of the developing countries well in mind. Our negotiations for accession were very much concerned with safeguarding the Commonwealth developing countries. There is no reason to fear that the enlargement of the Community will adversely affect the trade to developing countries.
Before I close I should like to say a few words about trade in manufactured goods. Here again the United Kingdom has an exceptional record, springing from the Commonwealth preference system, as an importer from the developing countries. The percentage of our goods met by imports from these countries is higher than that of any other major developed market. Now preferences have been extended to developing countries through the generalised system of preferences, a step which we have advocated since 1964. Our own scheme came into effect on 1st January and it is, we believe, a generous one. We have excepted only textiles and petroleum, and we consider that our scheme and the schemes which other


developed countries have introduced offer great potential advantages to the developing countries.
It will, of course, be necessary to maintain some balance between the interests of employment in our own industries and those of the developing countries. But we hope that these schemes will enable the developing countries to achieve a faster growth in their export earnings and in their Industrialisation on a competitive basis. The hon. Gentleman's anxieties in this respect were expressed without his having, perhaps, full regard to schemes which have only recently come into effect.
In the short time available to me I have only been able to mention briefly some of the very many matters of concern to the developing countries which will be discussed in Santiago over the next five or six weeks. I think I have shown that the approach of the United Kingdom delegation, which is led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, will maintain our record of making positive and constructive contributions to the advancement of the developing countries. The conference has a great rô1e to play in examining the needs of the developing countries and of ways of fulfilling them. Progress will, I feel sure, be made, but I could not, I hope, be accused of pessimism if I suggested that it is difficult to see that progress will be made on every item.
Development is inevitably a slow process but, I stress, a continuous one. I do not, therefore, subscribe to the view that U.N.C.T.A.D. III represents make or break for the developing world. It is

natural that the regular sessions of this conference should be regarded by many as an opportunity for making faster progress than has been achieved so far, but we cannot expect the work of U.N.C.T.A.D. to be punctuated by spectacular advance at each session. Major changes of policy cannot come about according to a mechanical timetable. The function of these sessions is, I believe, to sharpen the world's awareness of the problems of the developing countries and to redirect our work into more effective channels. We shall play our proper part in this.

10.57 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: By coincidence, I was in Santiago a couple of weeks ago and I saw the building being prepared and completed for the conference.
I should like to add one point to this interesting and brisk debate. I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), but there is one point he did not make that should be made loud and clear at U.N.C.T.A.D. It is that many countries which we have been discussing need above all capital for development, but they must understand that they cannot expect to attract capital if they scare it away by nationalisation of foreign assets, so often without compensation. We should not be ashamed to make that point loud and clear at U.N.C.T.A.D. for the good of all concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.